Supporters of President Bush had better face reality that their candidate did poorly in the debate last week or they will face something worse: defeat. Running around saying of Kerry that he said this, he said that, or even that the Senator cheated, won’t cut it. In fact, it may even be a distraction from winning. Time for a gut check. The truth is simple. Bush did not do well against a deeply mediocre candidate (and man) who isn’t even a particularly good debater, despite what some may say.
Bush exposed his own weaknesses at a crucial time. Despite his vaunted steadfastness, he is not a good finisher. He gets ahead and coasts. Some of this is understandable. It’s a normal human frailty. And with the media aligned against him it would take an incredible person to hold fast at all times. And, yes, they are cheering on Kerry so loudly that you could probably hear the din on the moon.
But this is news? Surely, the President and his people expected that. Did they have a strategy? Going to extend sympathy to hurricane victims on the morning of a debate is laudable on a human level but idiotic on a tactical level. (I remember wondering about it when I saw the news.) And allowing yourself to have a peevish expression when your opponent is talking is a real head scratcher for someone with years of political experience. Looking calm and collected would seem to be Presidential Debating 101.
Oh, well, I come back to town and I rant. If history turns because of this High School Debate (quite literally), academics will have a field day with new theories to invent.
Wecome home, Roger!
I hope you and Madeleine had a great time.
A few stalwarts have been holding down (tearing down?) the fort in your absence. Is 300+ comments (on the “Intermittent Blogging…” thread) a record?
Jamie Irons
We’ve had a few 300+ and one 400+ on Mel Gibson’s “The Passion.” I had to close that one down – got a little vitriolic.
BTW, Movable Type 3.1 is now installed. I hope it has solved the TypeKey problems. Let me know if it hasn’t.
You’re absolutely right on the debate consequences, Roger.
The Bush camp needs to get him coached and polished for the next debate.
BTW, I don’t watch debates, I read the transcript after. Easier to focus on what was actually said, that way.
You are right about the debate and the need for the president and his team to face the reality that reliable polls may show a dead heat. It will take some time for the polls to accurately show what is happening out there in the vast mind of the American electorate.
“Winning the first debate” [whatever that may mean] does not equate to winning the election. I saw a TV chart that Carter, Dukakis and Gore won their past first debates, yet did not win their elections.
The real mood of the electorate’s pysche percolates below the surface. Image is one ingredient; TV images, images from the campaign trail, images of war and violence. In one foreign press report, it stated that Bush’s ratings leapt amongst women voters with the images of Beslan and the weeping mothers and children running for cover. Bush’s ratings among women are far higher than expected due to his confidence level.
About that hidden note issue . . . I agree. Yes we know there’s probably something funky there, but, at this moment it’s a minor point with the clock ticking away. Bloggers, move on and get with the more important stuff. I sure hope someone in the Bush campaign is providing a reality check (Kathleen Hughes, perhaps?) and telling everyone not to be complacent. Putting the fear of God into the aides responsible for Bush’s schedule would help as well.
Roger,
Typekey is behaving much better, although I still flinch everytime I post. The only clitch I find now is that there is no way to post from preview, and the preview lines aren’t wrapped. I can live with that, sorta.
Its pretty important for Bush’s campaign folks to stop making excuses- its time to move on (gah that phrase has been seared SEARED into my memory).
Bush’s folks did an incredibly bad job of having him prepped and ready. Bush did himself no favors by not being able to control himself on camera – but at the same time, its apparently obvious he cannot stand Kerry or what Kerry stands for (or doesn’t stand for- or doesnt know what he stands for) and so its not too difficult to understand Bush’s exasperation.
I honestly don’t think he lost points and anyone looking at the polls as substantive evidence that Bush is in trouble is insane. Kerry’s debate performance convinced many of the diehards that he’s not a complete idiot and energized the true believers (ie moonbats) but at the same time, I sincerely doubt any swingvoter actually said “well the president repeats himself and stutters- I’m voting for Kerry”- after all, the president has been parodied on SNL for years now so his verbal inadequacies are not exactly a surprise (“strategery”).
Overall, its the democrats who want to focus on the last debate whereas the republicans and conservative blogosphere should be looking forward to the town hall meeting. Also, I think the VP debates are going to be something to see- Cheney should be able to say quite a bit of the things that Bush couldn’t last week and I expect him to put Trial Lawyer John through a meat grinder.
Let’s see how they do in the Town Hall format debate. Unless the crowd is heavily Dem-salted, of course… but even that would work against them.
And of course, the sight of Cheney throwing Edwards into the audience Tuesday night might be a distraction…
I’m sitting here at my desk Monday morning, listening to the chatter from my moonbat colleagues.
The buzz is, they are surprised at the developing consensus that Bush did so badly in the “debate”.
It’s interesting to me that people like this, who are predisposed to detest Bush, did not initially feel that Bush did badly. I don’t normally agree with David Frum, but I think he hit the nail on the head in saying that Kerry may not have won the debate, but he most certainly won the post-debate debate. I think we have to acknowledge that the DNC pulled this one out for Kerry by setting out, even from before the debate started, to spin it as a Kerry victory.
The Bush supporters seem to have shot themselves in both feet by allowing what was basically a draw to be portrayed as a huge win for Kerry.
That fact remains that Kerry said a great number of things that made him look foolish. Just because he “looked presidential” while doing it should not give him a pass.
It would be nice to think that we will learn from this and do things better next time. But I may be giving the RNC more credit than it deserves.
Absolutely right, Roger. The President had an opportunity last Thursday to make a very clear and simple case as to why we are in Afghanistan and Iraq (my version: there are people out there who want to kill us because we guarantee religious freedom; it’s important to kill them first), and he didn’t even try to make it.
Mark Evans,
The swing voters I run into around here are the small government, libertarian, fiscal conservative types. They aren’t happy with Bush and could lodge a protest by voting Kerry. The only way I have to get them on our side is to get them into an all but Kerry mindset. Hey, it works for me. But part of the all but Kerry mindset is that Bush has got to appear sufficiently able that they are willing to stick with him.
From the electorial college point of view, Utah is not a battle ground state; it will go for Bush. But it is still important that people support Bush, it helps him to act as our president.
That wasn’t a rant. That was just a well timed reminder. It’s not just that W is facing a poor liar who cheats, it’s that the DNC/MSM gives him all the cover any con could ask for. The rest of this campaign will be historical as to the depths to which the DNC/MSM will sink order to maintain a facade of relevance.
The national polls are showing a volatility that is somewhat surprising and I am particularly intrigued by the Gallup results. We’ll see next week if it was anomalous or indicative. I’m not backing off my prediction of a 54-58% win.
I agree that W needs to rest a bit more on the day of the next debate but I don’t think he actually coasts. He does have a day job that needs attention, unlike his opponent whose presence or absence from the office he swore to fulfill has never been worthy of remark.
I long ago accepted that Bush was an utterly wretched public speaker, but it’s impossible to get a mouth transplant from either Cheney or Rumsfeld, so the situation is hopeless on that score.
On the other hand, Kerry is my Senator, and I would as soon vote for him as I would burn out my own eyes with white hot coals. So on that score, the debate changed nothing.
Spot on, Roger. Bush was off his game Thursday night, and he needs to get his game on, and fast, if he’s to win this thing.
The notion of Kerry as flip-flopper won’t carry Bush anymore. Kerry’s tone, his manner, was calm and deliberative and intelligent-seeming–much more so than Bush’s. And most people focus on the manner of delivery more than the content of the ideas.
But Kerry’s ideas, especially w.r to Iran– were not only fatuous but terrifying.
The mullahs have already laughed at– there’s no other word for it– Kerry’s idiotic offer of nuclear fuel. But just as foolish, though no one’s picked up on this yet, was Kerry’s passionate advocacy of unilaterally casting away the only real effective deterrent we have against a rogue state’s underground nuke production program: the bunker-buster B61-11.
However, we’ve already shown that this deterrent works. In fact it was Clinton’s Defense Secretary, WIlliam Perry, and his team who brandished this weapon against Qaddafi in 1996 and caused Q to shut down construction of his own underground nuke production complex!
In other words the campaign is now Reagan vs Mondale, or intelligent deterrence advocates (aka hawks) vs irresponsible peaceniks/nuclear freeze advocates. And all our evidence is that Reagan’s approach worked vs SovUnion, Clinton/Perry’s approach worked vs Libya, whereas the Carter/Clinton appeasement approach re NoKorea was a disaster.
Bush and Rove need to be all over this. A nuclear Iran is far and away the greatest threat, the most important issue, confronting our country. And the mullahs have shown that only a credible threat of destruction–which is precisely what the B61-11 provides– will deter them. If Bush can turn the election into a decision on this issue, then it’s game over.
Tell it, Roger! You have stated my view far better than I ever could. Welcome back.
In yesterday’s post-debate debate between chuck and Samuel I found myself on chuck’s side. Bush is not a great speaker. He doesn’t inspire, and for some of us he doesn’t even persuade. It is left to Terrye to convincingly justify the Iraq War. No offense to Terrye, but it’s Bush who’s being paid the big bucks to do this.
I agree that Kerry is not a great debater. I don’t know what it means to “win” a debate, and I was a very successful debater in high school. But Kerry was a clever debater. My take on the debate is that Kerry very deliberately made himself sound presidential at Bush’s expense. He seems to have carefully analyzed exactly the place where Bush is weakest and to have hit him there hard. His tones were sonorous without being particularly pompous. He sounded competent and serene in his ability to lead while Bush seemed to be sputtering, flailing, and repeating. Bush is the shorter guy and his tone is high-pitched, a bit whiny. The difference wasn’t huge but it was tangible and it has become magnified during the post-debate spin. The ur-issue in this campaign is: who is going to be best at cleaning up the mess in Iraq? People don’t really care how it gets cleaned up. They could be persuaded to go in and destroy Fallujah and they could be persuaded to cut-n-run but they want it cleaned up, period. By sounding more presidential, Kerry was able to give the (almost certainly false) impression that these difficult matters would be better handled if placed in his hands.
As for the effect of the debate on people, these things are important and they do make an impact, like it or not. Clinton could never have gotten away with all his shenanigans if he hadn’t possessed such a golden tongue. I happened to be in Miami during the debate and I carefully watched the impact it was having on the people around me, curious as to how this important swing state would go. You could tell that the debate was having an effect, that the Bush supporters were weakening. One fellow I was with had studiously avoided paying much attention to the whole issue until now. He didn’t know about the fake CBS memos. He hadn’t read or even heard of the Swifties. He had made up his mind to make up his own mind by watching both candidates in action during the debate and deciding accordingly. Kerry sounded good and Bush bad; never mind that Kerry was probably making some of it up as he went–this fellow had no way to know that.
In particular, I was shocked that Bush didn’t follow up with a rebuttal to the bunker-busters gaffe. I expected him to say something like: “You see, that there’s a perfect example of where I differ from my opponent. He wants to disarm us in times of war. I guess we can add that to the long list of weapons opposed by the senator from Massachusetts.” But he did nothing of the sort, ignored the issue, and now the opportunity is lost.
The mullahs are laughing at Kerry. The Europeans are laughing at Kerry as well. His idiotic mantra, repeated since early summer, that French and German “help is on the way” in the form of troops for Iraq, has already been shot down, contemptuously, by European intellectuals.
Even the lefty US publication Mother Jones has pissed on this patently foolish refutation of political reality.
Bush needs to jump on this as well, and expose Kerry as the reality-challenged lightweight he is.
Re the “prepped and ready” comments…I wonder if the problem wasn’t that he was *too* prepped and ready. He seemed too eager to return to his pre-planned talking points rather than instantaneously taking advantage of the many opportunities that were offered (viz, nuclear fuel, bunker busters)
When the stakes are this high, it’s always tempting to pre-plan everything…but, as von Moltke pointed out, no plan ever survives the initial contact with the enemy.
Frankly, if Bush can’t outgun a candidate with such a weak hand as Kerry’s, then one can only conclude that Bush is suffering a serious case of battle fatigue and ought to be retired.
Hey Roger,
Yep, all of us true believers are waiting with baited breath for that nefarious October Surprise. The Dem’s better be right about that. And it better be a good one. [Ed. er, what if there isn't one?]
Although I remember thinking during the last election that Bush sounded best when talking about business; it was the area in which he was most fluid. Let’s hope that still flies. And if Kerry starts pummelling him for his record of achievement, he can easily counterpunch by reminding us of Kerry’s lack of a record of achievement.
Well we’ll see. Kerry debates better, anyone who watched the Weld debate in advance knew that, but on consideration his arguments don’t amount to much. They’re a smokescreen to conceal the vasty nothingness behind.
Here’s something interesting (from RasmussenReports.com):
“…following the debate, there was an increase in the number who say finishing the mission in Iraq is more important than getting troops home as soon as possible.” (57% now versus 52% pre-debate).
Bush is perceived to share this priority by 71%, Kerry by 25% – both up from before the debate.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Perspectives%20on%20Iraq%20Oct%203.htm
He seemed too eager to return to his pre-planned talking points rather than instantaneously taking advantage of the many opportunities that were offered (viz, nuclear fuel, bunker busters)
We demand better. If Bush can’t respond on his feet to Kerry’s challenges, is he capable of taking on a much more complex, fast-changing challenge like what we face in Iraq and Iran?
Kerry’s a complete lightweight. If Bush can’t dispose of a lightweight like Kerry, then it’s not clear he’s still up to the job. Mind you, I can’t vote for an unreconstructed, Rip Van Winkle, nuclear freezenik, either. But if the man’s running out of gas and merely reciting talking points, then Bush as war president is going to seem a lot less compelling to a lot of voters.
This is crunch time. Bush needs to get some sleep and then elevate his game, ASAP.
Bush didn’t lose, it was a draw. Don’t let them fool you. Sheesh.
Oh, welcome back, Roger! Hugs to Madeleine!
Spot on, Roger. I was very disappointed with President Bush’s performance. While I thought that Lehrer’s questions were often of the “when did you stop beating your wife” variety, I expected that my President and candidate of choice should have made short work of the proceedings. He did not. If it was “coasting”, then that’s all the worse.
And this kerfluffle about Kerry cheating is just nonsense. If he did, shame on himÖbut so what.
This election is so critical to our collective future that I cringe at the mere thought of Kerry being in actual contention. President Bush has got to step up to the plate in the next two debates.
These new poll numbers perfectly reflect the sinking feeling in my gut that I felt after watching the debate on Thursday.
Kerry was lobbing soft balls right down the middle and Bush was just standing there staring off into left field. He looked like he hit his head on a pipe and had amnesia and someone had to explain the War On Terror to him 20 minutes before the debate. The truth is, I don’t think I’ve ever heard Bush talk about Saddam Hussein’s connections to terrorism. It’s like he has an allergic reaction to it and leaves it to others to discuss.
EARTH TO BUSH: stop talking about the good work we’re doing in Iraq and let us hear some details about WHY we’re there and lay out an argument about the connection Iraq has to the WOT.
I’ve been defending Bush for the past 3 years and for the first time, I really felt he let me down. Maybe Karl Rove isn’t the genius everyone makes him out to be. He let Bush show up to the debate armed with a machine gun, BUT NO BULLETS.
Roger
I second chuck on TypeCast.
But I find the Preview problems, especially the loss of line-wrap, quite annoying.
And the damn thing still logs you out about every 30 nanoseconds.
Jamie Irons
I’m also really frustrated listening to talk radio and hearing all these Bush supporters playing all these sound bites of Kerry from the debate and saying all the things Bush should’ve said in response, as if all the undecideds who watched the debate are listening to them. Sorry Rush, sorry Hannity, but you can’t go back out on the court and make all the easy lay-ups that Bush missed, and you’re doing Bush a disservice by not letting him know how much he let his supporters down. Bush had his chance to refute many stupid, inaccurate statements that Kerry made with 62 million people watching, he blew it. It’s time to start praying.
The Fop
Maybe Karl Rove isn’t the genius everyone makes him out to be. He let Bush show up to the debate armed with a machine gun, BUT NO BULLETS.
Now, now, let’s get all take a deep breath into the brown bag and chill out. There’s two more debates, plus tomorrow’s debate. All is not lost . . . we need to do our share . . . I’m praying heavy duty. I sure wish there was a way I could contact the campaign staff, if only to let my concerns get heard.
Bush isn’t an awful public speaker; he’s an awful debater. It strikes me from what I’ve read that a debate setting goes against all his natural ways of communicating.
Some people talk by arguing. It’s what they do, and they’re good at it. They make points and attempt to defend them. A win is convincing their audience of the correctness of a position. A loss is concession that the position is untenable. Kerry talks to win and he’s been doing it for a long time. (His reputation for rhetorical embelishments — Cambodian hats, etc. — may flow from his deep desire to “win” conversations.) Winning is more important than the underlying topic. If Kerry is not a great debater, it’s because he gets sloppy, not because he doesn’t have a natural talent for it.
Some people are synthesizers. They listen, digest, and synthesize what they hear into a cohesive whole. What I’ve read of his management style makes me think this is how Bush works. And his best speeches (think about his speeches after 9/11) are the ones where he ties together multiple threads into a coherent picture. This is why everyone on the planet has a good idea what the Bush Doctrine is, even if the media hasn’t been helpful in getting the word out. Whether you think his vision is a good one or not, there’s no doubt that he has one, and it shows.
Bush’s lack of patience for fools doesn’t help him on stage either. If I’m right about their relative ways of thinking, Bush must perceive Kerry’s lack of consisistency as indicating deep dishonesty, lack of intelligence, and/or real mental instability. Having to deal respectfully with the liar/idiot/nut has got to rub Bush very much the wrong way.
Also it seems to me that Bush really expects to be “in charge” at all times. In the debate format, you must cede control to the moderator and your opponent at different times. Again, I expect this goes very much against Bush’s grain.
Having said all that, yeah, Bush is a grownup and should be able to overcome all that, and for the most part he does. I simply expect that he will never be good in a debate against a debater, so I’ll settle for “didn’t suck” and hope for the best.
If Bush can’t respond on his feet to Kerry’s challenges, is he capable of taking on a much more complex, fast-changing challenge like what we face in Iraq and Iran?
I think Bush’s style in these matters is to make a decision, then let the professionals do the work. That’s fine with me. He also does a good job of motivating the troops. But…as president it is his job to bring the country together behind the endeavor, and it is precisely here that good speaking skills matter.
I don’t want Kerry in the Whitehouse, I don’t think Bush needs to be retired, I think he needs to be reelected. I hope that the ground level campaign is going better than the first debate.
This may be the October Surprise . . .
The not-enough sleep excuse, or the Karl didn’t pack my lunch excuse, doesn’t explain this unbelievably lame response to a Q on our Iraq game plan, in front of 62 million people:
“In Iraq, no doubt about it, it’s tough. It’s hard work. It’s incredibly hard. It’s – and it’s hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it’s necessary work. We’re making progress. It is hard work. You know my hardest, the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm’s way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loves ones who lost a son or a daughter or husband and wife.”
What I wish Bush had said:
No troops were directed from Afghanistan to Iraq. Both operations were directed by General Tommy Franks and Centcom.
Our enemy is not just al Qaeda and OBL. Our enemy is a network of Islamofascist terrorists and the states that support them. And Iraq was one of those states.
Kerry will not be able to get more allies than Bush. We have 64 allies now. Those who refuse do so because of their own national interests and internal politics. It is not Bush that France and Germany have a problem with, it is America. They have already publicly stated that they will not send troops regardless of who wins the election.
Saddam had connections to al Qaeda and terrorist groups prior to and after 9/11: al Qaeda training camp, payments to the families of terrorists, contacts with upper level al Qaeda leaders, offered refuge to al Qaeda fighters who fled Afghanistan.
We didnít outsource the job of getting OBL to the Afghanis, we directed the most effective forces of the coalition to do the jobs they were best suited to do.
I think he was overtrained by his handlers, and stuck to his message that Kerry was not fit to be commander in chief because of his flip flops. Kerry wasnít sounding like a flip flopper, so he made Bush look… er, ah, stupid.
He has to be able to talk if he is going to lead. It is up to him now. He has to talk his way into a re-election. It is not going to be handed to him by the incompetence of his opponent.
If Bush is to win, he and his team need to start seeing themselves as the underdogs in this race. And start showing us bold, coherent, laser-focused leadership.
Rip Kerry to shreds on Iran (signalling the mullahs in the process) and show us a clear and bold startegy for decisive victory in Iraq.
Like father like son.
Madeningly inconsistent — in both policy and performance.
No use kidding oneself: with a Bush the rabbit is pulled out of the hat, put back in the hat, pulled out of the hat, put back in the…….
Yes, the alternative is far worse, unthinkably worse. But to count on Bush?
I agree that the Bush campaign needs to not only focus on Kerry the flip flopper angle, but Kerry the extreme liberal.
Also, with regards to Iraq, I like the way Rudy G. makes the case (loose paraphrase):
After 9-11, the President declared war not just on Al Qaeda, but all of international terrorism. One could not have waged an effective war against international terrorism without tackling the problem of Saddam Hussein. Case closed. Very simple and very profound.
Rudy also has given another useful analogy: that of fighting organized crime. He raalized that if you took out only one of the organized crime families, that would not solve the problem, as other families would assume their place. So you had to take on all of the organized crime families in order to really solve the core problem. Again, case closed.
Here’s an effective rebuttal to Kerry’s kill the nuke bunker buster argument:
Sen Kerry, terrorists and rogue states do not seek to acquire nuclear weapons because we are building a nuclear bunker buster bomb; we are building a nuclear bunker buster bomb because terrorists and rogue states seek to acquire nuclear weapons and other forms of WMD. Case closed.
Geez, Bush wasn’t the only one coasting to victory. This will be a close election; work hard.
“Flip-flopping” is just a Kerry tactic to cover the fact that he’s trying to hide his true liberal beliefs, which do not have majority support in 2004.
Bush may have decided to mail it in after Kerry came out as Herr Uberhawk. I mean, how’s he keep his moonbats in line now that he’s not pulling out this November? Can he really motivate his base when he has no real plan for Iraq that differs from Bush’s?
You know, if Kerry wins this election the Democrats are going to be crowing about how Bush lost it because he’s stupid and inarticulate. I would hate to think they are right, both about Bush and about the type of people who let verbal facility sway their vote.
Go to Lead & Gold
leadandgold.blogspot.com
…for some interesting stuff about Kerry and Iran. I would think this would be political dynamite, or even political plutonium.
Bush: “In Iraq, no doubt about it, it’s tough. It’s hard work. It’s incredibly hard. It’s – and it’s hard work. I understand how hard it is.”
The above is not “verbal infelicity.” This is incoherence brought on by either battle fatigue or a basic weakness of thought and/or character.
Bush put himself in the hole he’s now in. Only he can dig himself out.
I definately don’t think being over-prepared was the problem. It seemed to me that he had been given too few responses to the obvious questions and was utterly unprepared to deal with Kerrys’ lunancy. Why he didn’t take the opportunity to launch into Kerry’s senate record on defense issues when asked whether Kerry’s election would make America less safe is beyond me. I hated his “thats a loaded question” response and then watching him launch into “I don’t want to insult my opponent” mode- in my opinion, the American public does not react well to the BS- if you think we’d be less safe with Kerry in office, tell us that and why you think so – we need to know that.
Clearly, his responses about Iraq left alot to be desired- there’s just so many clear reasons to be in Iraq (even if people disagree with those reasons) and it almost seemed like Bush was spending too much time searching for those reasons rather than defending them. And he should have had the reasons for war down and been ready to reel them off when the question was asked.
Again, his staff did a ridiculously bad job of prepping him. They should have made him get a good night sleep. Somebody should have said “don’t grimace whatever you do” after Gore’s sighing. They should have had him ready to go after Kerry on the defense question. Most importantly, they should have told him to shut the hell up after he made his point- the rambling after a good line is what made Bush look less tha presidential.
Bush may not be much of a debater but good prep *should* get him over some hurtles. If his people let Bush go out there again with such little good prep, they should be shown the door.
Syl and Lola
I agree for the most part with you or anyone that has expressed similarly.
Everyone else including Roger
What weak stomachs, Please! You’re worse then me after my son (who usually wins) has pitched a bad game. I’ll be back in a few days after you get over yourselves.
–
Two debates to go.
With a smile.
JSF
The debate is in the can.
The results are pretty concrete; the president is committed to continuing the pursuit and defeat of terrorists and the ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq until both countries are self-sustaining democracies. He is also engaged in North Korea with the clear understanding that any diplomatic effort not involving the Nork’s neighbors sacrifices the best leverage we have in the negotiations.
Kerry laid out an agenda that meshes seamlessly with his twenty years of Senate tenure. U.S. foreign/security policy is subservient to international opinion. Our partners in the war on terror/Iraq are beneath the bar for consideration as valued allies but are rather bribed or coerced lackies, while at the same time france, Germany, and Iran are all on record where they will stand diplomatically regardless of who wins the next election. Kerry is on record as determined to offer the Iranians a summit with the carrat being we’ll give them nuclear fuel…which is exactly what led to our standoff in Korea. And the Iranians know that Kerry seeks an agreement he can tout, not any sort of viable restraint on the mullahs. They’ll sign any paper that allows them to remain the RAND corporation of international terror. Kerry views our position of nuclear weapons as morally equivalent with that of the Norks, the Iranians, or anyone else, and will move directly to end R&D on the best weapon to counter the known strategies of our enemies to protect their programs/facilities.
My poker analogy from the post-debate thread holds. I’m not unduly worried; the national poll shotgun blast (especially Newsweak and Gallup) doesn’t really move me one way or another. I’m watching Tradesports, IEM, and the EV sites.
The first debate has an impact on mostly uninformed voters. They saw Bush as Bush is. They saw Kerry as he wanted them to see him…but he overreached. His Four Point plan hinges on a 180 degree turnaround in the positions of the “correct” ally set and the efficacy of diplomacy with people that cut the heads off anyone they please when they aren’t blowing up or shooting children.
Even if the uninformed liked his style, his positions were clear.
Time fills.
Agree with Tmj.
This election should turn on Iran, not Iraq. It’s a reply of Reagan vs Mondale, deterrence advocates vs peacenik/freeze advocates.
Bush/Rove need to make this case clearly, succinctly, powerfully. IMHO if they can do so, they’ll win easily, and if they cannot, then the election’s out fo their hands.
The first debate has an impact on mostly uninformed voters.
Agree completely. But there are many more uninformed voters out there than I like to think of, so my job is to keep them informed. Speaking of which, I am looking forward to the end of the election cycle. It is hard work keeping up with all the stuff and very time consuming. I need to get my life back at some point, but it can wait another month.
Roger: Yes Bush did not do well in the debate. I agree. Kerry can say weird things with a straight face. What Bush needs to do is focus the attention of the american people on some of the profoundly weird things that Kerry said, such as:
This statement is so profoundly weird and so profoundly wrong in so many ways that it is breath taking. First: It proposes a moral equivalence between the United States, “The Last Best Hope of Mankind,” and the Mad Mullahs of Iran and the lunatic tyrant of North Korea — (We’re telling . . . but we’re pursuing. . .). On its face this equivalence is repugnant to the American people. Americans believe, and rightly so, that we are the good guys. We can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Our possesion of nuclear weapons is an assurance to the rest of the world that they can live in peace. American possesion of nuclear weapons is not a reason or excuse for the other nations of the world to so arm themselves. Kerry is rationalizing the posture of the tinpot dictators like Lil Kim and and the Mad Mullahs of Iran, who say: “If the United States has nuclear weapons, I should have them also, so I can protect myelf from American Imperialism.” This cannot be countenanced.On a more practical level, Iran and North Korea nuclear weapons programs are being conducted in facilities analysts describe as “hardened” against an airstrike. The Pentagon’s response — that Kerry wants to stop — is to develop weapons that will penetrate deep into the earth and deliver an underground nuclear blast capable of destroying those hardened facilities. Without these “Bunker Buster” weapons, the United States may have no way to destroy a rouge state’s nuclear or other WMD or their production facilities in hardened bunkers.That these weapons may be useful and may be used is — to Kerry — a problem. In the 1960′s where his brain is stuck, the doctine of MAD or Mutual Assured Destruction governed the use of nuclear weapons. Of course all discussions in that era were concerned about US-Soviet interactions. The Mad Mullahs of Tehran have been threatening to obliterate Israel just as soon as they get a nuke and no one doubts that Lil Kim is just as crazy as they are. This is no longer a MAD world, but a world stalked by asymetrical warfare. If your people are eating grass, the threat that their factories and cities will be obliterated may not do much to deter you. If you love death and want to go to paradise, a nuclear weapon is a quick trip. Bunker Busters are tools in the tool chest, not thinking about the unthinkable. Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, Terrorists kill people.
AND
I think the Republicans can and should lash him for betraying a bedrock principle of American foreign policy that goes back to George Washington. We will not subordinate our self-defense to the judgment or needs of our allies. Any thought that we should or would, even by voluntary self-censorship, must be rejected.Kerry defenders and Richard Holbroke are trying to make the “Global Test” acceptable to the American people, by rendering the key phrase: “you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons” meaningless or inoperable. In yesterday’s Washington Post, Richard Holbrooke announced that: “There is no Kerry Doctrine.” This may be good campaign tactics but it will not do as a analytic platform. I think the only way of understanding Kerry’s phrase and operationalizing it, is to understand it as a reformulation of the maxim of Kantian ethics that one should always act as if one’s actions will be a universal law. I am not here to debate the validity of Kantian Ethics. I think that it is safe to say that a majority of Americans do not accept it. It has never been popular in the English speaking world. Although it is foundational in continental European schools of philosophy. One problem is that Americans, tend not to believe in a universal objective rationality (although they do tend to believe in a personal God) they therefore understand Kerry’s demand for proof to the world as proof to partial fallible human beings who in their experience are uninformed as to the facts and burdened with prejudices. For example a majority of the Arab world believes to this day that the 9/11 attacks were made by Israeli security forces. When men start from such premises, we can talk until we are blue in the face and we will prove nothing to them. Kerry seems to believe that, at least if he is President, the world will listen to his arguments, will accept them at face value and will judge them in accordance with tenets of universal rationality. Bush, like most Americans, believes that he will have to justify himself before God. And any President will have to justify himself before Congress and the American people. But world opinion whether as a proxy for universal rationality or a concrete entity is not in that chain of command, and the American people will not accept its addition thereto.
We’ve already shown that that the B61-11 bunker-buster deters rogue states from pursuing underground nuke production facilities.
And it was Clinton’s team that demonstrated this, in 1996 against Qaddafi! Q shut down his construction program shortly after Perry’s undersecretary explicitly threatened to use the B61-11.
This is a layup for Bush. I can’t believe he and Rove are not slamming Kerry on this.
This is way off topic but since this is the active thread I feel somewhat justified in diverting attention a little. Apologies in advance.
Over the last several weeks the topic of why Jews vote left despite the obvious anti-Semitism on display by the left. In an article by Barry Loberfeld on Eric Alterman you get the answer. Alterman takes the position that neo-cons (another name for Jews) made a big mistake on Iraq. People now blame Jews for this “mistake” leading to a rise in anti-Semitism. In other words, Alterman really says that Jews must stay loyal to the left at any price to show the world that Jews are good socialists and are worthy of support within the socialist framework. You see, its OK for Jews to reject socialism but they must keep quiet about it less they give the socialist movement cause to doubt the loyalty of the Jewish community as a whole.
Here is the entire article which includes a refutation of Alterman’s view. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15349
Jerry,
I would bet that most jews simply fail to see the left as anti-semitic. It doesn’t fit with their preconceived notions and political traiditions and, unless they are watching the net and reading the left publications, the information isn’t there. If the left continues on its current course awareness will slowly percolate thru the community, but I suspect it will take years, not months, for this to happen.
I dunno. Reality is overrated, if you ask me.
My coworker just heard on NPR that a bunch of porn producers have apparently created a politically-themed porn movie, with proceeds to go to the Kerry campaign.
Paging Karl Rove … red alert, red alert! Here’s the gift . . . take and run with it!
President Bush’s showing was depressing. That assessment admits nothing against his character, his motivations or his much more substantial appraisal of and strategies for dealing, long term, with Iraq and the WoT more generally. But it does admit something against his preparation for that debate, primarily his readiness to aggressively take the fight to Kerry’s ideas or lack thereof and to more fully flesh out his vision. If people can’t more honestly admit that, they’re living in a world populated more by their imaginings than what was actually presented during that debate. Kerry’s win, even if it was a win of image over substance, was made possible by the President’s lack of preparation and/or willingness to win (the debate and the election) himself. He was presented with some slam-dunk opportunities and essentially responded with Roberto Duran’s “no mas.” Even if that overstates the situation, when compared to “what might have been,” it doesn’t overstate by much.
Yet without minimizing that admission, it also has to be acknowledged though that the Left/Dems, with the help of much of the MSM, are waging an all out political war while, by comparison, the centrist/conservative core of Bush’s supporters continue to wage nice and naive. VDH summarizes that divide as well as anyone lately in his The Perfect Storm of Hating Bush, parts one, two, three and four, each very brief pieces but also very telling in terms of Left/Dem and MSM alliances and what they are yielding in the political war zone. In terms of the image vs. substance, no surprise, Belmont Club has been as focused as anyone.
Despite Kerry’s own various weaknesses and in addition to his MSM advantage he also hugely benefits from a synergy between himself and his base of supporters, oddly galvanized by Michael Moore and others, but very much galvanized nonetheless. The same cannot be said of the President’s base to the degree it can be said of Kerry’s, it’s not even a close call. VDH’s series helps to high-light that fact and throw it into sharp relief. The problem exists as much with the base of supporters as it does with the Pres. himself, waging nice and naive against a much more aggressive, whatever-it-takes political foe waging political war.
I agree with every comment herein. Bush was simply not prepared and physically beat. I argue before courts and juries for a living, and there is no substitute for preparation. Bush has got to take the fight to the opponent and hold him accountable for his looney-left record. Kerry is still a unilateral-disarmement, blame-America-first liberal. Bush let his opponent off the ropes, and he must regroup.
Go on the offensive, Mr. President or else the battle against the Islamofascists is all but lost. Don’t let the liberal-media moderators like Lehrer allow Kerry to avoid his more-liberal-than-Boxer-Murray-Clinton-and-Kennedy record. Win or we all lose!
Robert Schwarz–
your post really resonated with me. Well put, I thought. Others on this list have also put their fingers right on these basic points, here and there, and I always appreciate it.
There’s a sneaky little line been running through my head for some time, that goes along with all this, and with the UN crap, etc.; it is, “I don’t believe in international law.” Every time I find myself thinking this, I wonder if I’m a bad person
(still a lot of “leftyness” left in me I guess!) It’s great to be able to cooperate, sure, but bottom line…what Robert said.
suellen
Sorry I spelled your name wrong, Robert, btw. I went back to make sure how it was spelled, and I see I still managed to goof
Roger:
In a Rasmussen poll 40% of the people polled felt that Bush won the debate, 53% felt that Kerry won the debate. Excuse me for being somewhere in the middle.
I know that Bush could and should have done better. But anyone who does not know who the swifites are or who does not know about the memos is far too dense to understand what is going in Iraq no matter what kind of performance Bush does or does not put on.
And I do think it matters if Kerry cheats because you need to know how the other guy thinks and operates. I am not saying we ought to shoot the man.
And argue about intelligence in pre war Iraq? Please, they would just call him a liar. There is an ad out right now calling Bush a liar for saying that Kerry would put the country’s defence to a global test. Well hell we all heard him say it.
So thibauld and wichita and chuck you can say that Bush did not do well enough and I will agree but to say he just needs to make the case is to ignore the last three years. The case has been made time and again and if anyone out there today still thinks we went to Afghanistan for a pipeline there is no thing Bush can say to disuade them and if they haven’t made up their minds then they don’t give a damn.
For Christ sake I don’t know one Democrat that can give me Kerry’s position on the Iraq war and what is more, they don’t give a damn. They just want to win.
I thought Bush looked ill myself, maybe he was or was not, but overall I did not think his performance was that bad. It could have been better but don’t make it worse than it was. I have talked to more people that thought he won the debate than thought he lost it. So it is a subjective judgment. And of course the media is convincing people. They are good at that.
But to say that Bush just needs to make a case with someone like Kerry who says there were not any ties with Saddam when his own party was the one who was responsible for most of the intelligence tells you they ain’t gonna listen.
I think Bush has a good oppuntunity to bloody Kerry’s nose on taxes. Given Kerry’s record I don’t see it being hard to sew doubt on his claim not to raise taxes on the middle class.
Bush just needs to wake up and get some fire in him.
The ties I was speaking of are the ties between Saddam and Terrorism.
Roger: I agree with the thrust of the argument you make. It does behoove us all to keep checking the electoral vote tally and trends therein http://www.electoral-vote.com/ .While I think the debate performance(s) may move some voters, the work done in the battleground states is probably where the payoff is. In those fora, I think Bush will probably do better than Kerry–none of which is to say, the President has to do better in the coming debates.
Haven’t read through the comments yet, just tossing in $0.02.
I’ve had some access to college students since the debate. In particular eavesdropping access where I was no part of the conversation and had no ability or desire to influence it.
I overheard approximately a half-dozen discussions of the election. Two were decidedly ABB/Kerry, two decidedly for Bush, and then the kickers…
Two of the discussions, paraphrasing, were apparently moved out of the pro-Kerry column and into the undecided columns. In both cases the kids were disappointed with what Kerry had to say (no details to relay, they were both very general in their descriptions). Both seemed (although not clearly, I could be inferring more than I should) to have been pushed toward wondering if it was a good idea to replace a “war-time” president if the opponent is not clearly a better choice – they both seemed to be saying, “if both horses suck I don’t see why its a good idea to switch midstream ’cause, if nothing else, I just increase the chances of falling off or finding out that the horse I switched to is even worse than the one I’m on.”
Another item I found interesting… while spending some time near a hand-scrawled “Friends don’t let friends vote Republican” message (for not a particularly long time) I overheard three different passing students react negatively with comments like, “That’s just stupid”, “Gee, isn’t that a democratic sentiment” (can’t say whether that one was Big D or Little D ;>), and “Oh, that’s nice… can’t let our friends think for themselves I guess.”
Slowly, but surely, the left is losing its stranglehold on our children! Hosanna, heysanna, sannasannoho, sannahey, sanna, hosanna!
Roger,
I was heavily involved in televised political debates a long time ago, including presidential primaries. I lost interest after 1988 when those turned into gotcha contests where the No. 1 goal was not to lose the election right there.
IMO it is rarely possible to determine the effect of a debate or rather, a series of joint appearances, until the pros sit down and compare notes after the election.
In most instances candidates’ goals, after not losing right there, are to get particular IMAGES across to particular demographic groups. It is possible for both candidates to achieve such goals, and for both to fail.
I did not watch the Bush/Kerry debate. I stopped watching television long ago and dropped my cable service last year after my youngest left for college.
But she watched it, and her chief impression was that Bush was far more positive and determined than Kerry. And she is a classic 19 year-old liberal. This told me that Bush stayed on the message he’s been projecting for the whole year. If he got it across to my daughter, he also got it across to the audience he was trying to reach.
Everything I’ve heard about Kerry’s debate performance was that he “seemed presidential”, i.e., he achieved the classic challenger goal of presenting himself as an acceptable alternative to an incumbent among those voters who are already disaffected from the incumbent and looking for an alternative.
So the impression I have of the debate from others tells me that both candidates achieved their positive goals. And neither lost it right there.
Whether the debate was a wash, or will have a material effect on the election’s outcome, cannot be determined now. I doubt that the pros on either side can figure it out, and non-pros lacking access to the specialized & confidential polls taken by the two campaigns certainly can’t.
I agree that Bush came across as weak and unprepared to challenge Kerry outright. In particular the quip from Kerry about the importance of holding a summit meeting was met by GWB with a reply that reminded me of how I respond to my wife when I’m under attack. It went something like… “well, I do have some of those in the planning stage”. It was a purely defensive response that sounded like a “me too” or “I haven’t forgotten about that” kind of remark.
Hosanna, heysanna, sannasannoho, sannahey, sanna, hosanna!
Great. Now I’ll be listening to that in my head for the rest of the day.
Slowly, but surely, the left is losing its stranglehold on our children!
Don’t tell me the little darlings are revolting again, questioning authority and all that great stuff. Oh, my! Their teachers should be so happy.
Sorry, Charlie. It just sorta popped into my head and, well, misery loves company so I thought I’d share.
Terrye,
I would like to second what DtP has been saying: it’s pointless to pay too much attention to the polls. These polls are highly rigged, as Samuel says, to get the outcome they want to get and we all know which outcome they want to get at this time.
Above all else, let’s remember that we continue to have a federal system and so it is the electoral college which matters. Now this tells me, with far greater accuracy than any poll, what the outcome of the electoral college is likely to be. When you examine the map referenced, you’ll notice that Bush at this point has a pretty solid lock on Ohio, and Wisconsin, Iowa, and Florida all appear to be in the Bush camp, while New Hampshire is too close to call. While Iowa and Florida are hanging on by a knife’s edge, my money is on Florida going to Bush, which, with Ohio, seals the election.
Bush’s lack of public speaking ability is unfortunate, the MSM pro-Kerry spin is unfortunate, but when you come right down to it none of this is a deal-killer. Still, I think the point that chuck was making yesterday and Roger is making today is that there is no point in the Bush camp’s becoming complacent at this time. It ain’t over till it’s over.
Bush didn’t do as badly as the spin would have it. It was inevitable that the media would hype whatever errors Bush might make, and given that, it’s better that the errors be non-substantive (e.g., exasperated facial expressions) than substantive.
I should note that I didn’t watch the debate (although it’s on an unviewed tape). I haven’t watched a debate since Carter-Ford in 1976. I can’t stand debates. They’re just — as someone above said — “gotcha” contests, with the media, not the opponent, providing the “gotchas” by (1) deciding after the fact which trivial and insignificant detail is really telling and important (as, for example, it did with Bush pere’s glance at his watch back in 1992), and (2) deciding on the basis of (1) what clips to highlight.
I think the race will tighten — that was probably inevitable too — but the polls will shake out with Bush still in the lead. Real Clear Politics still shows Bush leading in the average polling. Go here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html. Also, the polls showing the biggest swing in voters also apparently feature the biggest increase in the sampling of Democrats and the biggest decrease in the sampling of Republicans. See the post here: http://politicalvicesquad.blogspot.com/2004/10/liberal-media-cognitive-dissonance.html.
All in all, the lead Bush had was too good to last, particularly given the media’s obvious tendency to spin all new events in a light most favorable to Kerry. I think Bush’s personality will cause him to do better in the town hall format than in the first debate.
IMO, one of the problems with the Bush performance is Kerry’s inherent and seemingly endless talent for sophistry.
Here are some definitions to check out:
Definition: [n] a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.
Further, from Webster’s 1913 dictionary:
\Soph”ist*ry\, n. [OE. sophistrie, OF. sophisterie.]
1. The art or process of reasoning; logic. [Obs.]
2. The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only.
The juggle of sophistry consists, for the most part,in using a word in one sense in the premise, and in another sense in the conclusion. –Coleridge.
Kerry made abundant use of that time-honored debating technique throughout the first debate.
This is relatively easy to catch after a lot of training. I have 40 years experience as a trial lawyer, and in a trial can usually catch most of my opponent’s resort to such “cheap tricks”. But not always.
Kerry is a particularly artful practitioner of this technique. Almost the equal of Clinton, I might point out. It has been on display since his days at Yale, and as the “star witness” before the Fulbright Committee in 1971.
Unfortunately, W is not at all skilled in the art form of sophistry. He knows there are fallacies in Kerry’s arguments, but he is not particularly skillful in articulating and opposing them on the spot. That clearly is not his gift. Frustration then sets in. Someone needs to give him some techniques to recognize and call BS on Kerry’s sallies into never never land. The problem is the Bush is not a liar, and sometimes it “takes one to know one”.
I read the comments on this post daily because I am particularly impressed with the quality of thinking and writing displayed here. What I sense today is frustration that W did not pound Kerry over the head every time he came up with his sophist BS.
But we can help him out by ‘splaining’ to our friends and those we influence that despite all appearances, Kerry’s skill set is primarily limited to the fine art of the windbag who talks a good game but never makes a tough decision.
That’s what frustrates those of us who spent our year in Vietnam, while he came back after 4 months and badmouthed our sense of duty to a mission that could have been saved.
He was in a sense like Lt. Keefer in the Caine Mutiny. Undermining Captain Queeg and urging others to do so when he recognized that Queeg had serious psychological problems, but failing to use his influence to help his shipmates help Queeg to save the ship.
He should suffer the same fate as Keefer in the last scene of that play. Rejection.
W needs our help to assure that result.
New polls are coming in now. See the Kerry Spot. The race has tightened on a national basis, but Bush’s support base seems much harder than Kerry’s. Check out this Pew analysis. I’m afraid we can’t rest easy yet, though perhaps sleepless nights are unnecessary.
Looking towards Friday night’s debate…
I read something interesting today by long-time Wall Street investment strategist Don Hayes. He has some information that leads him to believe the jobs report due out Friday morning will be 75,000 higher than expected and that there will also be a significant upside revision in the August number as well. It’s in a private newsletter, otherwise I would link to it.
Could be a nice billowing out of Bush’s sails before the debate.
Roger,
I find it amazing that the worlds foremost democracy, preparing to elect a leader, subjects the candidates to such an embarrassing beauty competition.Any number of professional speakers and debaters could have probably run rings round both Bush and Kerry,but you are electing a president not a timeshare salesman.
Orational ability is not perhaps the most desirable attribute in a leader after all Hitler was a powerful orator and an utterly despicable human being.
I really hope that the American electorate is not gulled by style over substance, were are all at a crossroads in human affairs that we have not visited since the 1930s,including the Cuban missile crisis.
I lack the expertise to make the links work. The cite about the change in poll sampling is entitled “Liberal Media Cognitive Dissonance: The NewsWeak ‘Poll’”and is found in the October 2 entries at “www dot politicalvicesquad dot blogspot dot com”. The other cite is found by clicking the “polls” link at “realclearpolitics dot com”
Wichita:
I agree my dear.
I am afraid the media will just beat this thing to death. So much so that people will start believeing their hype and questioning their own judgment. I have never seen such blatant attempts to manipulate public opinion.
I still think Bush was tired and got pissed off. He has been campaigning in front of supportive crowds for weeks and he should have remembered not everybody is so forgiving.
But just like Kerry’s midnight rambling in Ohio right after the RNC both of these guys have done things all of us think we would know better than to do.
One thing about it, expectations for Kerry will be much higher in the next debates and who knows what will happen.
WichitaBoy,
Yep, I’ll go along with you there. The whole point of dealing with reality is not to prick everyone’s balloon and make them unhappy, but to see where things can be set right and improved. Add to that that nothing is quite so demoralizing as denial. If folks can’t call it as they see it, they will shut up and eventually wander off.
Bush has a solid base, folks like myself who made up their minds a while back based on issues and not personalities. I expect Kerry has the same. It is the undecideds we need to worry about. One bad performance isn’t the end, two will be something to worry about. So let us hope that Bush does better in the town hall format and that his people make sure he is rested and well prepared. One solid outing and I think he is home.
Terrye–
Re Bush being tired:
It is well known Bush rises with the crows. His peak performance is likely to be sometime in the morning. By 9 o’clock at night he is thinking about his Ovaltine and which of Saint Paul’s letters he is going to read before bed.
Kerry OTOH, is probably a night owl. If so, James Baker did Bush no favors by scheduling the debate so late in the evening.
vnjgvet,
I would agree and add the rider that the creation of a climate of moral equivalence,where there is no true or false only points of view, has done much to allow sophistry to flourish.
vnj:
Thank you for that post.
The whole time I was watching Kerry I was thinking of the real estate broker I used to work for.
He could talk people into things better than anyone I ever knew and I would not trust that man as far as I could throw my Buick.
And yes being President of the United States is about making decisions not debating.
I wonder if Kerry could actually make a decision.
Think of how frustrating it must have been for all those guys who went to Viet Nam that did not have the education or the ease with words or the egomaniacal need to be on camera listening to the things Kerry was saying about them.
Tom Holsinger
A question for you, sir.
What sort of information is available from the “specialized & confidential polls” done by the campaigns that is not otherwise available?
Details about how the specific “messages” were received? More than that? Something else entirely?
TIA
WashingtonPost poll shows Bush holding 5 point edge. Who knows what to think?
Knucklehead
I love it!
There are enough homilies on this subject that I firmly believe people will choose not to switch horses midstream when both horses suck.
“don’t switch horses midstream”
“the devil you know vs. the devil you don’t know”
“who moved my cheese?”
etc.
People don’t like change.
Catherine:
Especially when one of the guys is a smooth talking womanizer.
Good news over at Kerry Spot
Pew poll is good, and WAPO just went up; it’s terrific (IMO).
for the record: I agree with Tom Holsinger as to when it’s possible to gauge what the candidates did or did not accomplish in a debate.
question for Tom: Are you implying that debates aren’t exactly debates—-that they don’t necessarily have a winner and a loser, in spite of the fact that everyone thinks they do?
If you see the presidential debates as a kind of simultaneous live-broadcast ad, everything’s different . . .
Terrye
Do we have a saying about changing horses midstream when the other horse is a smooth talking womanizer?
Because if we don’t, we need one.
That’s your department, I believe.
How many of Kerry’s gaffes from the first debate will Cheney be able to pound on tomorrow night? If he can skewer Kerry’s idea of selling Iran nuclear fuel (or thoughtfully partially preprocessed bomb material) while promising to eliminate the weapon best suited for knocking out hardened bunkers while questioning Kerry’s identification of nuclear proliferation as being “the most important” problem facing the world, he will have done a good job.
If, additionally, he brings to the fore the utter stupidity of Kerry’s claim to be able to solicit additional allies to fight in a war that Kerry considers to be mistaken regarding location, timing and method it will be a plus. Or perhaps Edwards will be asked to explain why a broad coalition is necessary to fight terrorism but North Korea is better handled on a bilateral basis. Or maybe Edwards can explain what the “global test” consists of and who gets to assign a passing grade.
Lord knows, the DNC/MSM will not address the utter lack of logical coherence in the positions Kerry took as he “looked presidential” while “just making shit up”, so Cheney may helpfully clarify for the American people the choice that confronts them.
FYI, all
Here’s the scene to which I referred in the CMCM:
Barney Greenwald concludes his analysis of the trial, referring now to Keefer:
Only time it looked tough was when the Caine’s favorite author [Keefer] testified. Nearly sunk you, [Maryk, the accused] boy. I don’t quite understand him, since of course he was the author of the Caine mutiny among his other works. Seems to me he’d of gotten up on the line with you and Willie, and said straight out that he always insisted Queeg was a dangerous paranoiac. See, it would only made things worse to drag Keefer in. You know all about that, so as long as he wanted to run out on you all I could do was let him run–”
“Just a minute–” Keefer made a move to get up.
“‘Scuse me, I’m all finished, Mr. Keefer. I’m up to the toast. Here’s to You. You bowled a perfect score. You went after Queeg, and got him. You kept your own skirts all white and starchy. Steve is finished for good, but you’ll be the next captain of the Caine. You’ll retire old and full of fat fitness reports. You’ll publish your novel proving that the Navy stinks, and you’ll make a million dollars and marry Hedy Lamarr. No letter of reprimand for you, Just royalties on your novel. So you won’t mind a li’l verbal reprimand from me, what does it mean? I defended Steve because I found out the wrong guy was on trial. Only way I could defend him was to sink Queeg for you. I’m sore that I was pushed into that spot, and ashamed of what I did, and thass why I’m drunk. Queeg deserved better at my hands. I owed him a favor, ‘don’t you see? He stopped Hermann Goering from washing his fat behind with my mother.
“So I’m not going to eat your dinner, Mr. Keefer, or drink your wine, but simply make my toast and go. Here’s to you, Mr. Caine’s favorite author, and here’s to your book.”
He threw the yellow wine in Keefer’s face.
BobT,
I could only guess. It depends too much on what demographic groups have been targeted by each camapign, the relative importance ascribed to each demographic, and the message selected by each campaign to reach those demographics.
It is pretty clear that Karl Rove long ago targeted evangelicals for this election. Beyond that I haven’t paid much attention to the major demographic targets of the respective campaigns.
Too much else is going on for anything less than a titanic gaffe by one candidate to make these debates more than a blip.
The dominant factors in this campaign have been the war on terror, and the utter incompetence of the Kerry campaign and candidate. The single best word defining the latter is “drift” – inability to stick to any message. That is pretty deadly for a challenger. The Bush campaign could be doing a much better of exploiting the latter given the former. I don’t think much of either campaign, but Bush’s has at least had a consistent message and not screwed up publically.
The two wild cards are the October surprise, and the extent of vote fraud by the Democrats and their 527′s. I’ve had my money for months on an Israeli air attack on Iran, or more likely a series of attacks over a several day period, five days either way of October 23 being the October surprise. Followed by identification via airborne sensors from the radioactive debris plumes of Iranian enriched fissionables that those are one enrichment cycle away from being weapons-grade. The latter to become public several weeks after the attacks.
IMO the presidential campaign has been decided due to fatal flaws in the Kerry campaign, in strategic planning as well as execution. “A mistake in strategy can only be cured in the next war.” Democratic voter fraud might limit GOP gains in the Senate to 1-2 seats. Massive nation-wide vote fraud might swing a close presidential race, but this won’t be close, especially if I’m right about the October suprise.
Catherine,
Yes.
Kerry may be a smooth talking womaniser,but Jacques and Gerhard won’t go to the dance and the Mullahs have said they don’t go out with boys like him.
The man’s policies have unravelled and he isn’t even in office.
Catherine, you need your own blog.
Hint, hint.
Catherine:
Well let’s see.
That will be tough. What do horses in midstream and womanizers have in common? hmmmm
Either one can throw you..
leave you to drown
I remember the first debate between Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan, in which Reagan suddenly looked confused and old. Fortunately, he came back in the second debate and Mondale looked like he hadn’t slept in a week.
I don’t think for the most part that anybody wins the Presidency by winning the debate, although it is possible to lose the Presidency by a bad mistake (e.g., Gerald Ford in 1976 declaring there was no domination of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union). Bush avoided this. The latest polls show little movement.
I do wish Bush had smacked Kerry down on some of his goofy mistakes (no bunker-busting nukes, nuclear fuel to the Iranians, bilateral talks with North Korea, and his continued derision on our coalition), but pointing to those mistakes is not the same as ignoring our own. Somebody has to make sure that the President takes a mid-afternoon nap before the next debate, so he can be rested. He needs to stop slouching, and he needs to stop repeating himself (something Kerry also did–the debate was far too long at 90 minutes).
Catherine
I’m trying to come up with an apothegm that embraces the notions of “smooth-talking womanizers” and horses and not changing in midstream, and all I’m getting are images of old episodes of “Mr. Ed” and the lyrics of “The Tennessee Stud.”
With everything kind of spinning around crazily in midstream, like an out of control kayak in a class 5 rapids…
Did you do an “Archive and Install” reinstall of OS X?
Jamie Irons
everyone
I started this hours ago and had to go into a meeting so take it in that context, most comments will have been posted after…
I’ll add Terrye along with Syl and Lola as examples under the headline… “Kerry doesn’t impress Security Moms”. Kudos to you knucklehead as well. There are a few others (TMJUtah) also more even keeled. To the rest of you that vacillate between wobbly knees and disappointment and point judgmental fingers at Dubya I say please get over it.
First I respect all here and I think people know that is the case. I will only say what truth I feel is pertinent and productive. It is not that I don’t agree with much that has been said and any hard rejection of comments has little to do with such. What I do reject is the intemperate negative weight being placed on the performance, the political realities and most importantly the way such ill-tempered renderings affect pertinent helpful and productive reasoning.
For example, I find comparisons to Dubya with his father as an insult, what is the point that he fades and quits? Is that a fear or a reality? Well that comment has no ring of truth to me, in fact I view such as either a pot shot out of frustration or a way out of scope intemperate comparison if one reasons through the personalities of Dubya and his Father. I am not going to go through all of them in this or the last thread as they are full of them. The real point is what the purpose is. Is there truth in the statement? There is? OK, truth is a very interesting thing because perspective has as much effect on truth as the actual fact. Temperaments much affect the realities. For example I could tell my wife that she looks better in the other dress then the one she has on, or I could tell her she looks ugly in the dress she is wearing. Hey they are both the truth right? What is the difference? The later I say if I am in a mood when I should be more introspective before I speak. Am I excusing my negativity by declaring I am only saying the truth? Is it really an airing of frustration more than a moment to teach? One thing for sure, it isn’t inspiring.
To me that is much of what I see in many comments, some are very sour and very uncalled for. That is why when someone said something akin to, “If Bush could just damn talk…” I took offense because their was nothing but a moan and a bitch slap about an obvious weakness of the President can do little about, further his support was never rooted in such a thing to begin with. If there is nothing to achieve then why say it, some enlightening truth? It is a venting? I am just saying some need to quit claiming to be speaking a truth as an excuse to put forth unproductive belly-aching. I’m sorry, I run a business and when people get like that I keep them as far away from solution solving because there is none to be achieved with that kind of thinking.
I don’t expect everyone to have my take on things, but I do find the lack of faith somewhat insulting toward a man that has overcome time after time much more difficult situations, whether self induced or not. Bush is not at all like his father, he is not a quitter and he is not looking at his watch, he knows there is more at stake now than in 2000, he said as much. He is working hard running the country and NOT COASTING as some arrogantly have implied, I mean how presumptuous. It is one thing to say the man had a bad day as that is obvious. It is another to imply things we know nothing about! Sure perhaps he “was coasting” or perhaps he as I feel was working hard running a War and being President and as a result wasn’t as ready as I would have hoped, either way he is only human. But the viewing of the personal in the worst light seems to me unproductive and undeserved by the President, certainly he has proven to be worthy of better judgment. And while I understand some of the sentiments, I’ll be damned if many aren’t in an echo-induced tailspin, and I’ll add a tailspin Bush is nowhere near part of. Regardless of why Bush “lost” the debate (which I said from the very beginning that he did lose), the lack of faith is quite frankly disappointing if not discouraging because it is out of hand and uncalled for the simple sense that I would have assumed a better reading and take of Dubya the man from most you. History requires such.
Here is where my point about using truth as a means to excuse excessive negativity is important. It is hard whilst such projection of negativity wells within the hearts of the discouraged to properly reason in productive fashions, in fact by default it is and will be destructive. There is nothing to be gained by me saying she was ugly in that dress. There are more proper ways. The biggest compliment I have ever been given here at work as a coach in sports and whatever I do is to be told that I “inspire” people, but true inspiration is always rooted in reality. Inspiring is always rooted in the positive, and even in the midst of the biggest mistake there is only one reason to not use inspiration as a means, and that is if true ill will is involved. This President and the debate certainly does not fit that category, so let it be delivered by the means to inspire. In a nut shell, the reaction by many commenting right now is not rooted in inspiration. In fact the irony is that much is less inspiring then the debate was, not even close. It is not about head in the sand with me I am a very realistic person I guarantee. But excessive negativity has improperly tainted the realities of the mind of some in my opinion.
Dubya’s own history of overcoming and achievement deserves a better judgment and rendering of where we are in the campaign and what true fortunes are in store, certainly my take from what I am reading. Let us not spill all over ourselves, for on the whole we are wrong, will be proven wrong and all the chest beating may be therapeutic to us, but it unproductive and to put it kindly way out of order. I fully expect Dubya to put the shame back on the laps of those that feel shamed or disappointed by his performance. But let us not lose perspective. This is his pattern and what he has always done.
I thank God Dubya is not of the mindset being displayed by many of us here for if he were I don’t know how he could have acted and done the brave things he has done over the last couple of years. Does he deserve such damn underestimation by those that ought to know better by now? Well Samuel thinks not that for sure. Let us call it for what it is, Dubya does a lot of things in ways that make many feel uncomfortable, but the truth is it does more to display our weaknesses then his when we allow it to effect our realities improperly. In my opinion this is becoming overblown. How many really believe Dubya is going to loose all three debates? Do you really think domestic policy is his weakness? I don’t think so as most of his legislative achievements are domestic. How many tricky Iraq issues are there? Is that wishful thinking on my part? I don’t think so.
Dubya will always vacillate in quality between his performances, we all do. Has all of Roger’s work been equally successful? Is this President less consistent then you or I? I smell fear here and I understand how it affects the mind, been there done that. But fear is the only explanation. But I say it is fear of the unknown, what if he loses the second and third debate? Well I say when you don’t know you are left with two choices, fear the unknown or play the odds. I like the odds and will have to be content. It was said that, “How do I explain this to those that are shaky in support!” If they need an orator they got the wrong man. Moses was of slow speech, Aaron gave his speeches. One can be a leader and not be the Lawyer making the case. Bush is a doer not a talker. Jesse Jackson said, “I am a tree shaker not a jelly bean maker.” This President is a jelly bean maker, he makes jelly beans out of terrorists.
Many here act as if he finally may have done it, made that one mistake too many. Yet that is what it sounds like. Also all of a sudden all the things he was never good at he needs to be good at or what? Kerry and the MSM are taking him down? Right! Oh we just knew he was finally going to make the BIG MISTAKE, this must be it. Look, I could have told you he wasn’t going to knock Kerry out, so he put him self in an unnecessary tough position… not! Here is the truth, he no more under performed at the debate then he over performed at the convention. He is no more cornered now then he was before midterms when we Democrats cornered his ass in the UN only to get our heads handed back to us at midterms. What, Dubya is living on borrowed time or something?
Lastly, I admonish a little perspective please. This is only Dubya being Dubya, so let us not unwittingly become like actors in a “Twilight Zone” episode where we fight and argue about surviving a catastrophe that never was. -JSF
Jamie,
Smooth talking womanizing horses changing riders in midstream carry no water? Don’t know, it came to mind.
Oh, after my long rant I will read through all and hopefully be pleased as to what has develepod between my two posts, sorry if the rant seemed tough, I respect all.
I’m one of those who think GWB did well in his first debate with Senator and I believe my earlier assessment remains valid (if anyone cares, the post is here).
The President’s greatest vulnerability, in my opinion, is in foreign policy Not only is he answerable for the current situation in Iraq and for the general WoT, but whatever he said (or says in the future) explains the current and future policies of the United States. That he weighed his words carefully, or refrained from verbal combat is fully in keeping with his duties as the leader of the Free World. And being a Bush, he probably figured that what he’s -done- over the last three years spoke more loudly than words anyway. John Kerry had no such responsibillities and he, con brio made a number of specious charges and contradictory policy proposals that no Republican (incumbent or otherwise) making them could have survived as a viable candidate.
JFK certainly had no worries over press scrutiny. Take, for example, last week’s transcript of the PBS program “Washington Week In Review”. You will look in vain for phrases like “global test”, or “nuclear proliferation”, or “nuclear bunker busters”, etc.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that because Bush didn’t make a soundbite mistake, he didn’t lose the debate. But his reticence will allow the Bush04 campaign to hilite Kerry’s verbal recklessness with precision over the next four weeks.
As for the scowling and facial expressions, from now until Nov. 2, the voters are going to see hundreds, hell, thousands, of images of W. kissing babies, shaking hands, threatening terrorists, and congratulating our brave warriors. If all the Dems got going for their guy is a picture of W. smirking at a line of Kerry BS, they’re in trouble.
PeterUK
The man’s policies have unravelled and he isn’t even in office.
Yes!
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Another brilliant instance of PITH here in rogerlsimon land!
This is exactly what I’ve been thinking FOR MONTHS, only in way more words.
My favorite instance of policy-unraveling-before-election was back in March when Kerry got in a shouting match with the new President of Spain.
Even George Bush managed not to tick everyone off before he got sworn in.
Mark Polling
OK, OK.
Ummmmm . . . .
chuck
Yeah…that’s the ticket!
Jamie Irons
OK, now that Samuel’s weighed in (and none too pithily, I might add!) I’m going to grab the coattails and say I’ve never seen Bush as a person who coasts.
Exactly the opposite.
Chuck
Smooth talking womanizing horses changing riders in midstream carry no water
It’s a start.
I have just discovered that it isn’t easy to Google sayings about change being a bad thing.
Lots of sayings about change being a good thing, dating all the way back to Aristotle & beyond.
Nothing on Who moved my cheese.
http://www.heartquotes.net/Change.html
Oh goody!
A saying about change being bad.
And guess what it’s about?
But it’s easy to find anti-change proverbs IN FRENCH!
On ne change pas une ÔøΩquipe qui gagne
“One doesn’t change a team that wins.”
http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/list_of_french_proverbs.html
OK, I’m ready to start my own blog!
Si tu veux la paix, prÈpare la guerre.
“If you want peace prepare for war.”
AraignÈe du matin, chagrin; araignÈe du soir, espoir.
“A spider in the morning, anguish; a spider in the evening, hope.”
¿ bon chat, bon rat.
“A good cat, a good rat.”
What does this mean?
I’m going to have to investigate.
Spiders?
French always did bug me….
SO, if Bush is coasting, how come his count of locked-in electoral votes just went up?
Kerry gave the better show at the debate, no question. That means he wins Miss Congeniality, and maybe the evening gown. ButI say Bush won the talent and swimsuit portions. Which one would you rather take home?
First spiders, then Kerry in an evening gown….
This thread has become disturbing.
Catherine,
I am rather unsurprised that the French would “borrow” si vis pace, prepara bellum from Vegetius but I think a more accurate phrasing for the French (and Kerry) might be si vis pace, prepara succumbere. It’s really much more in keeping with both the French national character as well as Kerry’s.
After reading the debate transcript, an item filled with glaring examples of Kerry flip-flops and whoppers, that those pronouncing a Kerry ‘win’ in the debate are of a type that’d easily buy the pro-Dan Rather argument that the Bush National Guard memos were ‘false but accurate’.
This thread has become disturbing.
I think it has run its course and served its purpose. Now we can get back to the serious business of getting Bush elected.
However, I will be happy if someone can explain the spiders in the morning, snakes in the evening, Fritz Lieber spinoff, or whatever it was.
Catherine
When it is not neccessary to change, it is neccessary not to change.
Lord Falkland.
Just one last quick note: Bush maintains his 5-point lead over Kerry in polls released today. Can we lose some more please? It seems to work for us?
How hard is it to compose a two-minute ending statement, and to rehearse and memorize it? Too hard for GWB, apparently. He finished 15 seconds early, deperately staring at the timer box.
Nobody’s fault but his own. Yet somehow he still leads handily in the polls.
Samuel . . . thanks for the reality check. We all needed it.
PeterUK, I totally agree with you about the debates. But, we ‘Murricans don’t have your marvelous parliament questions-and-answers sessions, we got the debates that get trotted out every 4 years. I do think we could use these sessions over here.
Newsweek has now arrived at our household (I’ve put in an order for a National Review subscription as a counterbalance) and I’ve just finished reading the article about Cheney. It was eye-opening to read that Edwards will be going into that one-on-one debate format for the first time. Gee … this is going to be interesting.
Fred Barnes on Dubya in the debates
Chuck
Martine the nanny confirms that a spider at night is good luck, but she has no idea what a good cat & a bad rat signifies.
Mark Polling
You think?
vnjagvet: “I’m a lot drunker than you, so it’ll be a fair fight.” Heh. Edward Dmytryk’s finest hour!
I still think Bush won the damned thing, though I’m sick of hearing about it.
Where many of you see repetition, I see a man staying on message. Where you see inexcusable punch-pulling in the face of Kerry’s dissimulation, I see a man avoiding petty distractions.
The stuff I remember from the debate is:
- Kerry’s Carter-flashback moments like “global test” and “nuclear fuel” and such;
- Kerry’s universe of contradiction – unilateral, multilateral, yada yada;
- and Bush slapping Kerry with righteous might for mocking the allies and calling the war a “great diversion” and such.
Against all this we have Bush looking peevish and slouching.
Everyone agrees Bush won on substance. And though I’ve never had that much faith in the American people, even a cynic like I can’t imagine them looking at substance over here and style over there and saying “Hey gang, let’s go with style!”
And it’s interesting how far the spin has spun. Immediately after the debate everyone said it was a draw. Even the MSM called it a draw. Now Kerry’s the Bismark and Bush is the Hood.
I wonder if that post-debate ballot-stuffing effort the lefties did changed anyone’s opinion…
Oh!
It’s “tit for tat.”
ÔøΩA bon chat, bon rat
Cool.
Catherine:
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
That is not French and womanizing horses are not involved, but it will have to do.
exguru:
15 seconds, woo hoo. Somehow I think it is odder to notice that 15 seconds than to not use it.
Samuel:
I think we have all learned our lesson.
But speaking of polls. CBS/NYT did a poll together. They talked to about 500 people, most of whom probably work for CBS/NYT, they had a tie. The rest are going back up. How can you do a poll with so few people?
It is something how a couple of bad ones can whack the average.
FOR a good cat, a good rat.
Very cool.
I am supposed to be reading through 345 pages of galleys.
(Gallies?)
I bet you couldn’t tell.
Brian:
I stick with a draw as well. But that is me. And like you I noticed it was the general consensus until the on line polls became public and the second guessing started.
Brian -
Even the MSM called it a draw. Now Kerry’s the Bismark and Bush is the Hood.
LOL! Great post!
Does that make John Edwards the Prinz Eugen?
Well, I’m sure I’ve posted this link before, but since there is probably no blog thread on earth to which these concepts do not apply, here it is again:
Structured Procrastination by John Perry Version of April 25, 1995
Catherine
I would have thought À bon chat, bon rat — which seems to literally denote “To the good cat, [goes] the good rat” — meant something like “tit for tat.”
Is your iMac stilll crashing; it should not do that. Let me know.
Jamie Irons
Oh, boy, Please forgive me, I know not what I do (although I do realize how painfully awful it is)…
I’m half ‘cross the river on a horse with a name
It feels good ’cause he speaks real plain
In the river I can remember his name
But there’s one who might win for to give us some pain
He’s a smooth womanizer,
smooth womanizer,
smooth womanizer,
smooth womanizer.
After one year in the raging stream
My feet began to turn webbed
After two years in the river mud
I was looking at a weary horse
And the story he told of a river that flowed
Made some wonder if he’s a dud
I’m half ‘cross the river on a horse with a name
It feels good ’cause he speaks real plain
In the river I can remember his name
But there’s one who might come for give us some pain
He’s a smooth womanizer,
smooth womanizer,
smooth womanizer,
smooth womanizer.
After eight years I let the horse run free
‘Cause the river had turned to land
There were plants and birds and rocks and things
there was sand and hills and rings
The river was my journey with a horse underneath
And a perfect disguise above
Under the cities lies a heart made of ground
But the voters will give no love
I’m half ‘cross the river on a horse with a name
It feels good ’cause he speaks real plain
In the river I can remember his name
But there’s one who might come for give us some pain
mrp,
Voters watch debates, not listen to them. Visual image is far more important than anything which is said unless a candidate makes a dreadful mistake.
Don’t take in a debate live. Tape it and first watch it with the sound off. Think about what you saw, and only then watch it again with the sound on.
Kerry “won” last week’s debate because of visual images, but at most he reassured the reassurable. He didn’t, and couldn’t (given the format) harm Bush’s standing. Only the moderator or Bush could do that, and they didn’t.
Voters who already didn’t like Bush, but didn’t already feel safe with Kerry, were the only people Kerry could swing towards him via the debate, and he probably did that.
It sounds like Bush’s visual image was mediocre, but he’s the incumbent and went into the debate with a fairly secure lead, so his job was a combination football-type “prevent” defense and to remind people, with words, of his “positive & determined” message. He probably did that.
But you can do a better job of going down the road you’re on if that really is what you want to do. You’ll have less distractions listening if you take in the debate on radio, especially if you also read the transcripts as you listen. It’s important that you pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Terry, Syl, Catherine & Lola?
First, why is it the ex-Democrats that have taken this most in stride? Also I have noticed it is the women of the post-debate naval-gazing that are the least impressed by Kerry and most accepting of Bush’s imperfect performance.
Is it that the macho guys are freaking out over what they feel was an embarassing performance, while realistic women just take it in stride because they are used to the fact that a moment of ill-prepared universal emabarrasing lazy under performerances by men is just not that unusual? Could it also be they smell a rat with Kerry? Or is it both or none of the above?
People talk of the genius Karl Rove. In moments like these I think of Laura Bush and Karen Hughes, I think like you girls, they head off the BS and get it. Bush needs a kick for sure, but one of the believing kind only a woman can give.
Knucklehead
Wonderful!
Jamie Irons
VNJAGVET:
Excellent analysis of Kerry’s use of sophistry. In the debate, as well as other public appearances and speeches given by Kerry, one can see how effective such sophistry is when employed by a true sociopath. The following Kerry comment from the debate is a textbook example:
LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.
KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?
I believe that when you know somethingís going wrong, you make it right. Thatís what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people donít like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And thatís what I did with that vote. And Iím going to lead those troops to victory.
LEHRER: All right, new question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, ìHow do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?î
Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
KERRY: No, and they donít have to, providing we have the leadership that we put ó that Iím offering.
Other than National Review Online, virtually no pro-Bush media outlets have pointed out this segment of the debate. One expects the pro-Kerry media to ignore it, and they haven’t disappointed. But it is the Kerry use of sophistry that has resulted in the pro-Bush media missing a comment of such significance that it alone should have resulted in the debate going to Bush.
If Kerry managed to get away with this contradiction, then he essentially walked into the debate with no possibility of losing. this does not bode well for the following two debates.
Jamie,
To paraphrase Stalin, ugly has a beauty all its own!
Which reminds me… just yesterday I saw the beastliest looking bride I ever set eyes on. Eeegads! That girl would make a train take a dirt road. Shiver me timbers she was ghastly.
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you
Now there was a young man facing a life of unbearable ecstacy. At least they’ll be back from the honeymoon just in time for Holloween.
PS – typekey seems to be all better. Bet y’all wish it would go back to preventing me from posting.
Brian:
I agree with you on Dmytryk. And Bogart and Ferrer weren’t too shabby either. The excerpt I quoted above was from the novel. The movie version is pithier and portrays Keefer as even more like Kerry.
To Roger and his merry band of commenters:
All I can add to the discussion is this:
As the redoubtable Steel Magnolia once said, “now is not the time to go wobbly”.
This last debate is a metaphor for what has been going on in the country since 9/11. It is human nature to criticize or lose heart or be upset when things go bad, as will of course happen. But there is a job to be done. I cannot believe W has become a slacker this past week. He needs support from those of us who know in our hearts that this election is about fitness for command in a war.
W has demonstrated his skill and ability in that job, and while he has made mistakes, on balance he has surrounded himself with a top-notch team and acquitted himself well.
Kerry, on the other hand has (seemingly) demonstrated he is a clever debater able to sound good “in the moment”.
There is no rational choice here but to stay the course.
Terrye
Yes very true about the effects of the post debate. When Al Gore actually won the debate but conventional wisdom said he didn’t Al Gore allowed it to effect his game plan. I guess that is why I find the last couple of days a little off putting. I suspect Bush won’t do like Al because he is more self confident about who he is.
What did Bush do different? I mean he was who he always is, an inconsistent speaker with his heart in the right place. Are people going to say Oh my God, I just realized the man is incompetent! Or as I suspect are they are going to be pulling for him the next time and rejoice when he succeeds. Bush needs to have another “rise to the occasion moment” and guess what? He will have that chance and do so in a way that delivers as needed.
Sometimes I think the Hugh Grant bumbling aspect of Dubya causes normal salt of the earth people to relate. It inspires those supporters with superior verbal skills to pull for him, especially when the likeability factor is considered. To many this all may sound like wishful thinking, and it would be for others but not Dubya. It is not for him because that is the pattern and history what we have to go on.
Kerry wrongly talked of the “Last man to die for a mistake”. Likewise there is not one “Last mistake Bush must die for” either.
Tom -
It sounds like Bush’s visual image was mediocre, but he’s the incumbent and went into the debate with a fairly secure lead, so his job was a combination football-type “prevent” defense and to remind people, with words, of his “positive & determined” message. He probably did that.
That’s about right. For me it was a matter of who made the fewer mistakes, and in that regard, it was a solid Bush win.
The CW leading into the debate was considerably flawed. Take, for instance, the debate format. It clearly favored Kerry.
The two candidates stood on a stage, speaking into microphones, bloviating for more than an hour in front of a non-responsive crowd.
That’s what John kerry has been doing in the Senate for the last twenty years, when he bothers to show up.
Whatever ephemeral visual advantage Mr. Kerry accrued during the debate will quickly dissipate in the heat of the season.
I love it!
EuropeÔøΩs New Take on Bush Eyeing Odds of Bush Re-Election, Nations Seek Ways to Mend Ties
(may be subscription only)
vnjagvet
Amen.
vnjagvet,
But who is going wobbly? I don’t detect that tone here. I don’t think we need to worship at the altar of Bush to support him.
Re Samuel’s intangibles, I think that Bush is a beneficiary of a deep ongoing shift in American values; he represents where the country is heading, Kerry where the country has been. At the moment these two sides are almost in balance, but I will bet that a year from now things will look quite different, with the Bush side ascendant.
The Kerry team is pulling their money and operatives out of VA and focusing on WI and some other Mid West states.
Kerry is gaining ground for sure.
A few more such gains and he can stay home. Which home? I guess it depends on which one the big T lets him flip flop in.
Damm! Are you people still here obsessing about the silly so-called “debate”? You need to get out more. Try heading over to Lileks place. As they say at LGF, ROFLMAO.
Spent the night at the Patriot Forum, sponsored by The Patriot radio station, AM 1280. Who was there? Patriots! What did we discuss? Patriotism! We all faced a giant picture of Arnold (black and white, strategically lit from below) and toasted Our Secret Fuhrer with wine served in the hollowed-out skulls of our enemies.
It’s good for what ails you.
This is fabulous, too:
Keeping Score A round-by-round look at how Bush and Kerry did during the debate. by Jonathan V. Last
vnjagvet,
I appreciate the content and tenor of your comments. Kerry will always have the edge in sophistry and the MSM will always bury the valueless content of his soporific yet totally inane responses. W showed a bit of irritation, yet had he chased one of Kerry’s rabbits the MSM would portray him as giving a “bitterly partisan” response as part of his “overwhelmingly negative” campaign. W might have done better but the MSM would report his walking on water as an inability to swim.
I just hope that Cheney uses Sen. Purdymouth as an effective surrogate for Kerry tomorrow evening. Cheney does not have the constraints upon him that W does. It may be a much more interesting debate.
Mike:
That statement by Kerry is the one that I really noticed. And yet pundits were saying he had a good comeback for Bush. To me the man sounded irrational.
Bush might belabor the point but he does not sound irrational.
I remember at one point Bush did lose his cool and say that Kerry was being absurd. Truer words were never spoken.
Samuel:
Women expect men to be honest and protective, they don’t expect them to speak well all the time. In fact one of the things women complain about with men is that they don’t talk enough. They are incommunicative.
I thought Kerry was such a phoney and so full of crap and I was so amazed at his global test remarks and his I was for the war before I was against it etc. that I honestly did not notice any change in Bush other than he was peevish and redundant.
It was Kerry that was freaking me out.
I guess if he stood up there and read Edgar Allan Poe’s “the Raven” it would be ok fine just so long as he had a good delivery.
Nevermore.
Catherine
I think people forget how hated Reagan was in Europe. Clinton was a pigmy compared to Bush I when he went in. If Dubya wins and Iraq stabilizes he will have earned their respect plus some.
I rarely burn bridges because one never knows who they may need, but it is very hard to forget. The actions of Europe, Canada and others with the not only lack of help but aiding the enemy while blaming our President for their sins, add to that the disdainful scorn they have heaped upon us and it can feed a bitter belly for a very long time. Also the Democratic Party joining in such choruses I don’t think I can forgive because they are citizens not enemies. And fair or not you add to that some innate prejudicial cynicism a Jew like myself rightfully feels towards Europe and their current behaviour along with the taking up of such sentiments by the left, well I’ll just stop before I get too preachy.
Roger, relax
mrp ó Nah, Edwards is more like one of those inadequate little Seeadler- class torpedo boats: cute looking but ineffective against opposition that can shoot back…
Catherine ó “Europe’s New Take on Bush: Eyeing Odds of Bush Re-Election, Nations Seek Ways to Mend Ties”… have the whores of Europe figured out there’s a new pimp daddy on the turf?
M. Simon:
I am sorry, but I don’t understand your meaning.
OK, Knuckelhead, you can retire with the crown
That was frickin’ brilliant.
Jamie Irons
And you speak French!
And yes, my Mac is still crashing. Ongoingly.
I have not dumped any preference files; nor have I auto-archived, or, uh, archived & auto-reinstalled, or whatever it is is I may decide to do tomorrow instead of doing what I’m supposed to be doing.
Samuel
How come the women aren’t more exercised?
That’s easy.
BECAUSE WE DON’T WATCH SPORTS
(I don’t, anyway.)
Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s my impression that guys take it personally when their team screws up.
No?
Revenge is sweet.
The whole thought of VOTING GEORGE BUSH BACK INTO OFFICE AS ALL OF EUROPE WATCHES—–
Oh yeah.
Europe, ah, it reminds me of nothing so much as the seventies. Somehow they got stuck thirty years behind the times. I suspect that insidious new American values will worm their way into the region at some point. Nobody wants to be left out of the party forever.
May I recommend a song for the “Babes for Bush”
“Cut across Shorty” by the late Eddie Cochran,seems apt at this stage of the game.
chuck:
You are right there and I think that is why they don’t like us.
We are seductive.
No one is going wobbly, for heaven’s sake!
Good grief.
Chuck
I’m writing that down.
That’s the way I feel, too; I hope it’s true.
I think it’s the same thing Samuel has said about the shift 5 points to the right.
Speaking of the 5 points, Samuel, if you’re still around, I had another funny 5-points-to-the-right moment with my husband yesterday.
He was sitting at the dining room table, intently reading the TIMES, a frown on his face.
So, as an expression of continued good will, I said that the article on how the Bushies got snookered by Massively Wrong Intelligence was good. (I’ve only read half of it so far, but it actually was good.)
Turned out he wasn’t even reading about the Massively Wrong Intelligence.
“I’m reading about the Palestinians,” he said.
Now, he was never pro-Palestinian, but on the other hand, on 9-11 he was a person who believed in “the cycle of violence.”
We went many rounds on that one, needless to say.
So yesterday he’s sitting there reading about the Palestinians, and then he quotes me a line from a Palestinian political scientist who says something like, ‘What has Arafat brought us–we could have had a state and instead we have Sharon, the intifada, and the wall.’
I said, Well, yeah.
Then he said, “The a**holes.”
I’d say that’s a good 5 points to the right.
mrp: Does that make John Edwards the Prinz Eugen?
I have a hunch that tomorrow night the USS Cheney will make him look like the Graf Spee.
I just googled the Bismarck for the hell of it; did you know the crew of the doomed Hood numbered 1,415, several hundred more than we’ve lost in the entire Iraq compaign? And down they all went in one morning.
Britain’s response? Defiance.
Catherine ó “Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s my impression that guys take it personally when their team screws up.”
Of course we do, darlin’. That’s what beer is for.
Terrye,
Kerry pulled his paid operatives out of Virginia and redirected them to Wisconsin and Michigan in the vain hope of helping himself there.
W has closed down North Carolina but that’s because it’s definitely in the bag. From now on it’s a consolidation game with everything pointing finally at Ohio and Florida.
Our Congress just did something tremendous, via Bros. Judd:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/140/12.0.html
On September 28, the United States Senate unanimously passed the North Korea Human Rights Act of 2004. The bill, which must now pass the House of Representatives, authorizes the naming of a human-rights envoy and allows the release of humanitarian funds to nongovernmental organizations that aid North Korean refugees. Human-rights advocate Michael Horowitz, senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, discussed the meaning of the legislation with Associate News Editor Stan Guthrie.
What is the significance of the passage of this act?
Here’s an abused term, but in this case, I have come to feel that it is literally correct to call this success a miracle. The odds couldn’t have been heavier. Here was a bill that had to come before the United States Senate in the closing days of the congressional session, under circumstances where a single Senate objection would kill the bill. It had to operate under a unanimous consent procedure, and where the bill was being bitterly opposed by the South Korean government. The North Korean regime was claiming the passage of the bill would be provocative and lead to every apocalyptic threat they could issue. Many in the State Department were absolutely hostile to the bill’s purposes. There were a number of Democratic leaders who had every reason to find in the bill real barriers to their preferred approach for dealing with North Korea. What the bill did was elevate the status of human rights in North Korea and make it a necessary element of any bargaining process and relationship that the United States and [North] Korea had. And of course this ran directly contrary to the views of people who want to resuscitate the so-called “framework agreement” that the Clinton administration, had where we gave them legitimacy and billions of dollars in exchange for WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] promises. And it ran directly contrary to the Sunshine Policy, so called, of the South Korean government, which had repeatedly said, had literally said, that a high policy priority the South Korean government, indeed its highest policy priority, was to keep the Pyongyang regime in business because the economic consequences to South Korea of the collapse of the North would be too troublesome, too grave.
And not only was it passed, but remarkably, the final Senate version was considerably stronger than the House bill, that all of these forces tried to block…..
Whoops, let’s try that again, this time without my elbow on the keyboard.
Roger, I understand entirely about “cold turkey”. Lost my Net connection the evening Ivan blew in, had no service at all until four days ago, and until tonight I was limping along with AOHell because cable was down.
So I can say from personal experience: Relax, and go take a look at the latest polls. No Kerry bounce.
And historically, voters don’t pick the “winner” of the debates.
For some reason, when I read one of Terrye’s posts that mentions the name ‘Kerry’, in my mind’s eye I see a chicken-wire screen in front of her TV.
Well Catherine I’m not ashamed to admit that I am very American but I certainly am not ashamed of my support of Israel. I always said any Irish person should be interested in what is going on in Ireland that’s for sure.
Here in the Nations Capital we have a rather substantial Muslim population and quite a few Arabs as well. I have a Palestinian friend that I never discussed politics with much because personality wise we just got along so well and I didn’t want to ruin it. He did not know I was Jewish at the time and did not for a while after we first met. I’m a fairly secular guy by nature and I never tipped my hand politically.
He came back one day bragging about how he met Arafat with Clinton and man was he star struck! I almost puked! Now this guy had been a Republican and I asked him what he thought of a Palestinian State and he said, “Arafat should not sign that silly agreement it gives away what can’t be given, the whole land of Palestine is ours!” I asked, “So what is the solution?” He replied, “The only solution is the Jews must leave!” I chilled out and came back later to be up front about myself, I first showed respect and told him I felt our friendship should continue and then told him my history, from Europe to now, and I let him tell me his, I’ll spare the details. We have maintained friendship. Funny thing, we always voted opposite, he for Bush and his father, I of course for Clinton and Gore and guess what? We still vote opposite as he is supporting John Kerry and I George Bush! Catherine on most issues I have shifted very little, but you can tell your husband on Israel and Security I am damn Likud to the core, yeah that’s right I’ve shifted 20-30 points to the right, very trumping indeed, more then enough to shut me up about Gay marraige and Abortion that’s for damn sure, they seem so petty under the circumstances.
Catherine if Muslim support were the same as 2000 Bush would be well ahead in Michigan. His numbers are in the tank with them, it is the Catholics that are making up the difference. (Thank you Catholics), but Catholics shift more for social conservatism and I’m not about to run them off. I am ashamed more Jews don’t reciprocate, tell your husband who his political allies are now, for me my Palestinian friends shift confirmed the rightness of my own shift. A sign of the times indeed, your husband like my wife’s teeny 5% falls short, but to me there should be no tolerance of allying with such thinking! Oh well I’ll just have to be content that Likudnics run Israel and Republicans are in charge here. Also be content and that Bush is principled enough to do what is right and not punish Jews for such lack of support, I could pull my hair out over this.
Catherine– For what ails your Mac: Take one of these and don’t call Apple Tech Support in the morning.
Knuckle–
Eeegads! That girl would make a train take a dirt road. Shiver me timbers she was ghastly.
Yeah, but she sure can cook!
Catherine,
“Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s my impression that guys take it personally when their team screws up.”
It’s not just a psychological phenomenon; it extends right down to the basic biology and right into the bedroom. This is scientifically documented:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980419140959data_trunc_sys.shtml
mrp:
Why whatever do you mean? she said batting her eyelashes.
I will admit it the man drives me nuts. I can not help it.
I did hear that Kerry is ten behind in Va.
He does well on the east oast, so long as it is the yankee east coast.
Catherine (and other MacOSX users),
For your Mac, if you want to watch movies in any format imaginable including special Microsoft formats like wmv, the software on this page should do the job for you.
Catherine
Archive and Install!!!
But seriously, I’ve been watching Monday Night Football and flipping to the World Series of Poker on ESPN during the commercial breaks.
Watching Johnny Chan, the amazing Doyle Brunson, the irritating, fascinating Phil Helmuth, Annie Duke, Greg Raymer, Phil Ivey, Howard Lederer…
Wow! This is America, this is what’s great about this country…
The Islamofascists don’t have a chance!
And I agree with you, I think chuck is channeling Alexis de Tocqueville with this:
Jamie Irons
Samuel,
be content and that Bush is principled enough to do what is right and not punish Jews for such lack of support
Good point. Imagine if things were reversed and it were Clinton in the driver’s seat….
Terrye,
If you’re still thinking about that stupid Newsweek poll by that partisan rag Newsweek, check out this pajama-blogger’s investigation into the Newsweek polling firm’s background. It’s an eye-opener. [Hat tip Betsy's Page]
Terrye
He does well on the east oast, so long as it is the yankee east coast.
Except on the I-95 “Terror Corridor” from Washington to NYC. Kerry won NJ by 16 points and is up by only four? Hell even in New York Gore won by 25 points Kerry is up bu about 12%. Further the debates have little to nothing in the battleground states.
realclearpolitics.com is great because they average all the polls and unlike “The Polling Report” they give you all the breakouts without needing a subscription.
The part that disturbed me most was how eerily similar GWB was to his father against Bill Clinton.
I didn’t like Clinton back then, but I couldn’t believe how *disconnected* GWHB seemed in those debates. It was as if his best argument was “hey, I’ve been president–that should be enough reason to trust in me.” And worse, it was as if he couldn’t see that the train was passing him by, and he wasn’t on it.
I’ve never previously seen GWB to sound or look like his father. Even in his dismal showing against McCain, he didn’t seem like GWHB. But his best argument seemed to be “trust me, i’m president”–and that won’t cut it. But GWB was in that campaign–he’s supposed to have seen what mistakes his father made, AND NOT MAKE THEM AGAIN.
The part that next disturbed me most was that if you listened very carefully to John Kerry, you heard that his ideas are patently Dangerous. (But if you didn’t listen carefully, you might have missed how serious his isolationism and disdain for using US power for good are.) I used to believe that re: Iraq, Kerry probably couldn’t pull us out of Iraq, no matter what his rhetoric. I thought that he probably couldn’t screw things up there. But now I know that’s irrelevant, because he will give the Iranian mullahs all they need to destroy us and Israel, will placate Kim Jong Il, and will open us up to more attacks–just as he’ll stop any innovation in the military here at home.
I was never going to vote for Kerry, and I was always going to vote for Bush, but I am very concerned that Bush doesn’t understand how close this is. My only solace is wondering that whatever strange folk haven’t made up their mind yet probably didn’t watch the debate, either.
I understand that it Republican partisan pundits can’t say “that sucked” without it being used against them. But I really wish I believed that they hadn’t drunk this “Kerry’s toast” kool aid.
Wichita
Imagine if things were reversed and it were Clinton in the driver’s seat….
Oh please! Way too easy… he would have set aside half the State of Israel as National Park by Executive Order.
Geez–I leave a thread at noon and it certainly goes in interesting directions. PeterUK: I always understood that Eddie Cochrane was bigger in the UK than in America where his major hit was “summertime blues.” thanks for the trip down memory lane!
Samuel: I do appreciate your insights, sir. Thank you yet again.
All: my impression: no cause for panic. The internals and the state by state polls argue very well for the President. Courage!
I’ve nothing substantive to add. But I do like all the literate references to sea battles. The Bismarck, the Graf Spree (scuttled in the Rio de la Plata!), etc. Where the heck else would you find people throwing out casual allusions to this stuff?
It reminds me of the time a friend and I were watching 4th of July fireworks. We’d call out the names of battles to correspond to the size and impressiveness of each salvo. “Operation Torch!” “D-Day!” “Coral Sea!” “Pearl Harbor!” “Antietam!”
Then if a dud came : “Gadsden Purchase!”
OT and I Don’t Care ó Any vets on the board: They Found Specialist Schwartz Again!
Matteo ó Did you get into arguments when one guy yelled out “Bull Run!” and another yelled “First Manassas?”
Greifer–
About Bush not knowing how close the election is: Let me tell you a little story about the Tour de France.
The greatest race in Tour history was a time trial that finished on the Champs-Elysee in Paris in 1989. American Greg Lemond, in second place, needed to make up 50 seconds on race leader and French favorite Laurent Fignon in a short, flat time trial through the streets of Paris–too short, really, for Lemond to have a prayer. But, at each time check…CÔøΩest impossible!…FignonÔøΩs lead kept dwindling. As his team director screamed at him to go faster, Fignon, riding behind Lemond, pedaled furiously to hang on to his slender lead. At the finish line Fignon collapsed. Moments later he broke down in tears upon learning that after 87 hours and 38 minutes of racing he had lost the Tour…by eight seconds.
I relate this story because there is an important detail that makes it relevant: Lemond knew how close the race was at the start. He knew he would have to ride the race of his life to have a prayer. So he told his team manager he didn’t want any time checks. He knew what he had to do, and all he could do was give it his best effort; he didn’t want to be distracted by seeing the interval times.
I am sure Bush feels the same way. He has his head down, hammering on the pedals, and he too will collapse at the finish line. Bet on it.
And don’t worry about it, either.
First, why is it the ex-Democrats that have taken this most in stride?
This may be off-topic by this point, but to me the answer is easy: the zeal of the converted.
I have friends that have been “converted” by W, and they have the same seemingly deeply emotional attachments to him that Samuel, Terrye, and a few other seems to have. One of them can’t stand to hear the slighest negative thing about him, or to hear any kind of anti-Bush joke. I don’t know how she gets through the day, living in New York.
I was “converted” at age 11, in 1984, by a man named Ronald Reagan. He is the only politician that I have ever had this kind of emotional attachment to and basic faith in. I’m also one of those nasty no-good “RINOs” who think that Reagan’s legacy is better exemplified in the political careers of Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzeneggar than in that of George W. Bush. Anyway, as such, I have no real emotional attachment to George W. Bush, or deep faith in the wisdom of his ways, the way I would if it was Reagan we were talking about. I like him. (W) I think he’s a good man, and I’ll certainly vote for him, but there’s also a lot I don’t like about him.
But you’ll never forget your first. W isn’t my first, and Roger hasn’t been fully “converted”. Part of that, IMHO, might be weaknesses in W.
(I just want to note that I’m not trying in any way to say that my analysis, because of my less passionate take on W, is more “objective” than that of Samuel or anyone else. I’m merely trying to account for the different reactions.)
Samuel’s right, of course. It didn’t go badly. I think the real problem for alot of us very pro-Bush people is two fold- first, we have a deep respect for the president- it takes an amazing person to do what he considers the right thing, when half the world is against you and your own countryman are calling you Hitler. The sheer resolve and determination this takes is mind boggling and speaks volumes about W’s character. And we think that character SHOULD translate into a winning debate style- we are upset that Bush’s performance did not evidence Bush’s best qualities but unfortunately, highlighted those qualities for which he was endlessly harassed during the last 4 years. We’d like the undecideds to see Bush how we see him – a good man with firm resolve to make us safer- for most of us, we have no doubt of W’s good intentions- we’re too smart to think for one second that Iraq was only about Haliburton and oil. And we were disappointed that Bush’s debate performance did not live up to our hopes and (probably unrealistic) expectations.
Secondly, quite frankly, Bush is the head of the republican conservative pro-war movement and as a member of said movement, I wanted our C & C to administer a sound drubbing to the leader of the shrill anti-war idiot brigade, the group which has spent the last 3 years calling me a facist and a nazi and spitting on me (factoid- my car was keyed a few days ago and my Bush bumpersticker was torn off the car- I’m assuming the two are related- could you even imagine doing this to a car with a Kerry bumper sticker ?). I wanted some payback, quite frankly. Kerry stood up there and lied his ass off on national TV, bold faced, unabashedly and Bush didn’t call him on his BS. The lying thing gets to me the most- the sheer amount of lies being told by the far left the last 3 years and I’m ready for the truth to be told – for me, like I’m sure many of you, the truth vindicates our position for 3 years- the french are lying sacks of crap, Hussein had WMD and terrorist ties, the war in Iraq was necessary and this country is well on its way to being safer for everybody – but Bush never said that. Kerry might as well have been radio’d controlled from moveon.org HQ b/c all he did was repeat their talking points (he failed to call Bush Hitler but he was probably thinking it). So while I don’t think Bush did poorly and I dont think it will have any bearing on the election (I still have Bush by 10), at the same time, he was our spokesperson for those 90 minutes- most of us have went to the mat for Bush over the last 3 years, defended his policies against idiot moonbats and clueless peaceniks- and I suppose I just wanted to feel like finally, our side was able to make a good coherent argument that Iraq was necessary, that Hussein was a threat, that we are on the right path. Bush should have done that and he didn’t.
Does that mean I like him any less ? No, of course not. When it comes down to it, I know, like most of you, that Bush hardly shines in a debate setting. At the same time, its hard to not be disappointed when there was some level of hope that Bush’s positions and policies would finally be defended properly and on a national stage.
Eric Deamer
“the zeal of the converted.”
This may very well be. I have a hard time listening to all the Bush bashing. It’s really getting to me.
However, even before I was converted I was shocked and upset by the Bush bashing. It was unseemly and juvenile. To discover, two years later, that people were calling Bush ‘selected’ rather than elected was abhorrent and confusing to me.
I voted for Gore and was just as upset as other Democrats when the SCOTUS came down with their decision. But I accepted the decision because it was the final law of the land. I moved on. And, yes, I really knew we were trying to pull a fast one by changing the election law in the middle of the election and I was hoping we’d get away with it. We didn’t. So that was that.
It was the Bush bashing as much as my support for the Iraq war that moved me to the right. So if I’m bothered now by Bush bashing, it’s simply a continuation of my feelings since before my conversion.
Another thing I’ve noticed about myself. My support for Bush, until only recently, was support for his policies, not necessarily the man himself but for one exception: I believe Bush should be rewarded for his superb handling of 9/11.
How can we so easily forget our feelings about him and how we looked up to him as our, yes, leader, after those days? Only an extreme cynic could turn on him so completely in order to gain political power.
The Democrats didn’t have to turn so totally against Bush. They could have supported his foreign policy and attacked him on domestic issues. But no. They have to attack everything the man has done. Total negativity.
And that is a turnoff. The more negative they are, the more I solidify towards Bush. I can’t be the only one. There is a continuum of time in which people have edged towards Bush. Some earlier, some more recently, and some still to come.
Anyone listening to the debate who is getting a bit turned off by all the negativity could not miss all the bashing coming from Kerry. It was meat for the solid bashers, but poison for those who are leaning Bush.
Instead of being upset that Bush didn’t answer every point, I noticed the points he DID answer. What do you mean by global test? Your NoKo policy is a mistake and won’t work. How are you going to convince allies to help us with a diversion?
Sure, I would have loved more. But my only disappointment truly with the debate was the handling of it afterwards. The spin was controlled by the Kerry folks. THAT upsets me more than what Bush did or did not do during the debate.
Does anyone know how they’re going to select the audience for the 2nd debate? Do each side get a say on who’s going to be there? Will the deck be stacked one way or the other?
Lola ó They’re holding auditions at Columbia, Berkeley and Boston University, to ensure diversity…
Eric Deamer
There is no possible way you are more a “RINO” in the policy sense. If you read my previous post when I talked about Social Conservative tipping the balance of power, I am resolved to live with this because societal priorites require this and there is no “splitting the difference” at the times we live in. Social Conservatives have the natural moral fiber to stand taller in the WOT because it is a combination of survival and a moral issue. People who place fiscal conservatism at a higher premium then the WOT make me sick. I run a business, have a libertarian streak, but the sanity in me tells that side of me to go to hell every day. Being a Hard Ass Hawk is so overriding for me, Rudy Giuliani is my model Republican, in fact more so then Arnold Schwarzeneggar. I have a Gay brother, I have no use for policies that shut them out of many societal institutions or even minimal substitutions like Civil Unions. No I have as much as any against this President, but reality is as it is and throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the order of the day, I think you are somewhat wrong and presumptuous about Roger’s level of conversion. I have met Roger and his temperament is more the difference then anything else. My display of zealotry is due to many things I won’t overly belabor but Roger and I aren’t as far apart as you may think.
I don’t hold the President as accountable for his Gay marriage stance because he showed a desire to put such fights on hold, he has sought from the very beginning to put abortion and like issues off the table as much as possible, yet the politically selfish forced his hand, especially on Gay marriage and I understand that, and I also understand that these same people would also have this President lose this War in Iraq so they might gain, so it is them I hold in high contempt. Bush would lose if he turned his back on social conservatives and I understand that, now is not the time to pick such fights and this President did not pick it, but once picked he has to play to his base, I’ve been involved in Politics I understand.
I was in my 20′s and in 1980 voting against Reagan. While I have come to really respect the man, probably the most ideologically driven President ever, I don’t believe for one minute Reagan would come close to being the hard as in the WOT than Bush is. Reagan was an ideological warrior perfect for the times of the State against State ideological and rhetorical struggle and war of wills between Communism and Capitalism. He won it through show of resolve and many other brilliant tactics for another topic, but to stomach what Bush is dealing with was not in Reagan’s cards. What Bush is facing is way more complex and further what I find most amazing about Bush is I look and see a man with a heart of gold, I see a man who cares for all this beyond himself, yes I see it as a sacrifice on his part that deserves a respect and for us to not be nit picky complainers. I see a man who meets with the parents of the fallen while taking arrows in the backs from those who should be his friends both here and abroad, yet being blamed for taking those very arrows by people that are in states of ill-conceived rancor. Yes they blame him as he takes the very brunt of this because it is a responsibility a man with his heart and soul must deal with in very tough ways. It is also because I know he is not Hitler and as a Jew my heart cries when I hear him called this. Hitler had a stone cold heart and carried such burdens with cold indifference. This president carries the responsibilities of his decisions with the thoughtful burden that comes with a good nature and that causes me to feel for him and that is why I defend him. Agian it is not because he is the first or the one I most agree with, but becuase of 9/11 and his task of dealing with the aftermath, and because he deserves it. I have lost a child and the burden of such is more then any physical pain I have ever borne. This Presidents burdens are great and I just plain and simple have mercy on the man that is all, I get teary at the thought.
Syl
I agree with you and I will with permission add your words as an addendum to what I said.
Lola
I will make a prediction. If the President gets sabotaged or people feel he has been sandbagged the Democrats will pay. This President has earned the benefit of the doubt by many that don’t agree with him on everything because he shoots straight and plays fair. Because of that they will judge things accordingly.
Matt Evans
Good job and great post.
Syl
Absolutely.
I first became disaffected with the Democratic Party during Clinton’s second term, because of his “war room” strategy of meeting every criticism with ferocious counterattacks on the character of whoever was doing the criticizing.
Since I agreed with all of the “right wing” criticisms concerning Lewinsky, Willey, Broaddrick, and perjury-about-sex, I was suddenly in the position of being attacked by the highest levels of my own party, and on a daily basis.
In retrospect, it’s bizarre that no one inside the Clinton circles appears to have thought this through. (Perhaps they did, and decided to go with the Permanent War Room strategy anyway. I don’t know.) There were bound to be many Democrats who strenuously objected to Clinton’s abuse of women (I call it “abuse,” not “sex”): what was the Big Fat Feminist Point about the boss sleeping with the intern, anyway?
The Big Fat Feminist Point about the boss sleeping with the intern was that that constituted sexual harrassment, a concept that evaporated the instant we had a Democratic president caught doing it.
Not just evaporated: anyone who didn’t get the memo was told they’d lost their mind.
Worse yet, once you’ve “aged out” of the Crazed Feminism of your youth, you move on to a new set of sexual values: to wit, husbands who sleep with interns are wrong and bad.
So think about it. The Democratic Party was filled with baby boom generation feminists & fellow travelers who a) believed in sexual harrassment and were against it, and b) believed in monogamy and were in favor of that: was it smart to call anyone who disapproved of Lewinsky/Willey/Broaddrick “right-wing,” “prudish,” “naive,” “not-sophisticated-like-the-French,” and all the rest?
No. It was dumb.
(We lived in LA then, and having to hear constantly that the French “wouldn’t care” if their president had sex with interns just drove me nuts.)
I’ve posted about this general issue before, as have others (Eric Deamer, notably).
Democrats universally believe that they lose elections because they are “too nice.” They were traumatized by the Dukakis campaign, it seems, and are perennially fighting the last war (actually, the war before the last war).
As a result, Kerry is constantly being told that he has to “take the gloves off.” Ditto, Edwards.
Both men interpret “take the gloves off” to mean: act like a prick.
(Sorry.)
Neither of them seems to notice that acting-like-a-p**** is risky territory for a person trying to win people’s votes. That’s why the Republicans have Dick Cheney handle all the ALAP aspects of the campaign, while George Bush runs around Florida hugging people.
Another factor at work seems to be that Kerry has never gotten over his beloved “free fire zones.”
His concept of “fighting back” is just to fire away at random, not worrying who he hits.
Samuel
Amazing story about your friend.
Wow.
It’s a funny thing, liberal Jews not really reacting to the fact that vicious anti-semitism is now a phenomenon of the left, not the right.
People like my husband see it . . . (others, too) . . . but it’s not quite “connecting up,” I feel.
OTOH, if I strongly believed in Democratic policies, I’d stick with the party, too.
I don’t fault anyone for staying with the politics & policies they believe in. What puzzles me is “the elephant in the room” aspect of things.
At what point do Al Sharpton & Michael Moore & Jimmy Carter & the Berkeley poster people (the anti-semitic posters plastered all over Berkeley) cause you to draw a line in the sand?
I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again: there’s no room for Michael Moore & me in the same party.
Get rid of those guys, and then we’ll talk.
Matt Evans
Fantastic post.
Samuel, again
I’m glad to see your Reagan post.
I feel exactly the same way.
I don’t know enough history & politics to trust my judgment on this, but that’s the way I feel.
I should probably add that Bush is not in any kind of “hero” relation to me . . . I won’t know how I ultimately feel about the guy until years after his presidency is over.
But if Bush were running against Reagan, I’d pick Bush.
Catherine
I must say you are right about the strain Clinton had on the moral fabric of the Party. The Republican’s sufferings from Nixon was much shorter lived because they had principled people like Howard Baker and Barry Goldwater stand up to Nixon. Republicans take care of their own problems, just ask Trent Lott. The insider Democratic Establishemnt along with their larger support groups throw principle overboard when it serves them and then return to religion when it suits their needs. They are like the proverbial preacher who with a ring of harlots in waiting point at the vile sinners. It all just makes them appear cynical and laughable.
In truth they even lend compliment and credibiliy to the Republicans when they endeavor to turn the tables. For example, remember when Arnold was running for Governer? The very same groups that excused Clinton’s proven harassment went after Arnold for lessor things not even proven! The compliment to Republicans is found in the fact that they brought these things forward not because they really cared, but because they knew the Republicans would care! Again, the proverbial preacher with a ring of harlots indeed.
–
Concerning your next post, I would pick Reagan then and Bush now, they both were brought forth in due season and I would do so for all the reasons specified in my post to Eric. For today Bush and non other except maybe McCain. But Bush is better because he is more trusted by his own base and carries less personal baggage.
Samuel
No permission necessary. I owe you so much for helping me understand Bush.
Catherine
–Both men interpret “take the gloves off” to mean: act like a prick.—
Keeper!!!!
*People who place fiscal conservatism at a higher premium then the WOT make me sick. I run a business, have a libertarian streak, but the sanity in me tells that side of me to go to hell every day.*
A-frickin-men. I am all for smaller government and fiscal conservatism. I’ve been defending the republican administration for 4 years and for some reason, the moonbat contingent cannot grasp 2 simple concepts:
a. we are at war
b. wars cost money
The fact that our economy is apparently in pretty decent shape (not great but decent) is amazing, considering Sept. 11 and two wars. Did anyone expect our economy to bounce back so quickly ? A year ago, the democrats were all saying “wait till we unload on Bush about the econonmy”. To their surprise, the economy recovered during wartime. As many have noted, economics is a good way of looking at the stability of our country- yes, our boys are dying in Iraq and yes, I wish to god we would carpet bomb Fallujah but our Union remains strong, our economy has regained its footing. Yes, our deficit is high but for crying out loud, I’d rather spend our money on making sure terrorists don’t hit our country and infrastructure then give more money to the NEA.
Hell, I know this is almost ridiculous to say but if Bush wanted to hike my taxes a bit in order to help pay for the WOT, I’d be ok with that- every american has to shoulder the burden of making both ourselves and our world safer and most of the time that burden is monetary. But not only did Bush not raise my taxes, I got a check back. Its fine and dandy for the Waffle to talk about how that money was needed elsewhere but I also doubt his wife would agree with that sentiment.
The fact that the economy has not completely collapsed under the weight of America’s responsibility is a testament to both our capitalist system AND to Bush’s governance – market fluctuate during uncertain times but Bush has been a constant in a storm of uncertainty. Could you imagine the fluctuations in the market economy every time President Waffle is confronted with a tough decision or worse, a terrorist attack ? A kerry presidency would do more to damage the economy then any spending on the WOT.
Catherine
*No. It was dumb.*
Exactly. I cared less that CLinton was married and fooling around and more about the fact that he picked a nineteen year old intern to fool around with. To me, the lewinsky thing was indicative of Clinton’s reckless decision making- something you never want in a president- and while I thought this was an incredibly rational point to make, I was called a prude and GASP a conservative for apparently not sharing Clinton’s open mindedness about sex with his employees. I have done sexual harassment litigation during the course of my practice and Clinton’s involvement with Lewinksy and subsequent cover-up would have been met with a substantial civil verdict in practically any court of law in the nation.
Catherine
I will add that in all honesty Bush does indeed carry hero relation to me, not on many policy levels, rather a personal level. As I mentioned in my response to your 5 point shift post. Mine was a 20-30 point shift on Foreign Policy, but my main sense of heroism towards him comes to me because as a Jew, I see him as quite the anti-Hitler. I see braveness in him and a conviction to do what Clinton would still be sweeping under the rug, even post 911 I think Afghnistan is where it would have ended and even there with a treaty rather then total defeat. Bush carries a brave Chutzpah that my own father much respects. But it is my father in law a Holocaust Survivor, and one who will have nothing to do with Republicans at any level even to this Day, that says it clearly by action, because his one exception is this President who proudly has his vote, mine is rooted in something similar. While I find more to agree with Bush because I am naturally more moderate then my father in law, but still it is the single issue of Bush being the “anti-Hitler” and his willingness to risk all endeavoring to preempt worse case scenarios up front, all done with both phyisical and political braveness that does it.
Matt Evans, Catherine
My 17 year old daughter is a pro-Life Social Conservative by her own choice, she is the one that drives my other family members the most crazy as I am congenial by comparison. She views such exploitation like Clinton as an affront to women. She really believes what most issues women claim as their liberation she views as enslavement, promiscuity, abortion, etc. She thinks women have sold themselves down a river chasing such things. In her words…
“If women think being gross and irresponsible is liberation or acting in uncouth ways is impressive then Beam me up because I’ve landed on the wrong planet!”
In truth she gets that from me (the stark portrayals), that is my nature. I was in too deep and Clinton did me in politically because he exploited my loyalty, what an insult! I was too tied to give in easily and hung on too long, never again. The main reason I changed parties… PRINCIPLE not POLICY. I agree easily with Democrats as much as Republicans on policy, but when trust and principles are lacking what for, to be turned on and cast aside for expediency? NO THANKS!
Samuel and Catherine
I agree that Clinton abused his power, neglected his duties, and lied about it and for that I condemn him. I am less condemning of the actual fact he had sex with his intern.
I think there is a subtle difference. And where I disagree with your daughter is that women now have the right to be flaming a**holes as well as men. Women have the right to make stupid mistakes in sexual relations as well as men.
I never cared for Phyllis Schafly. Not that I disagreed with her POV about how wonderful it is to be a wife and mother. I do agree with that. But the point (as I saw it) of the women’s movement (in the beginning) was to allow women to have careers instead of, or along with, being a wife and mother. To give women a choice.
I still stand by that.
Syl
Man talk about getting off topic!
It isn’t about the sex with his intern at all. It is about abuse of power. It is about a person signing into law the very things he acts as if he is above. It is about perjury and obstruction of justice. I said at the time if Clinton just said, “no comment.” or, “it is none of your damn business!”, or “so what if I did?” It would have been fine, but his willingness to outright lie almost in religious testimony and send us all to hell for his own selfish sake, looking at supporters who had sacrificed much and biting his lip swearing it wasn’t true. His willingness to ruin other lives to maintain a reputation that epitomizes hypocrisy was sick.
By the way you don’t disagree with my daughter. She is not judgmental at all. It is one thing to advocate hard and defend what you believe in, she is all for that. Fight strength with strength. My daughter has friends that are lesbians again not the point. What my daughter loathes is the championing of things she feels demeans women as if it were good and wholesome. If her friends went around trying to talk other girls into their lifestyle she would slam them. She has a very libertarian perspective about individuals, she like her father hates hypocrisy. She has come to find for instance that women who would counsel any young girl to immediately have an abortion without educating her to the possible psychological impact is not doing any favors. One of her best friends struggles with this at this very day. She sees people like NOW and other groups as selfish, self serving and not for true health and well being. To my daughter, her friend was an unnecessary sacrifice to a selfish group playing in a one-sided way a very dangerous side of an issue.
Samuel
Yeah. Imagine us going off topic. LOL
There’s no disagreement with you about Clinton. And I’m sorry I think I may have misunderstood your daughter. Really, she sounds absolutely perfect to me. I should have been so together at her age.
I did have to get a little dig in at Schafly though.
A sly reference to my previous post above, plus an advertisement. Today’s been a “D-Day” (or is it “First Bull Run?”) of good stuff to read online and link to on my blog, but a “Gadsden Purchase” in terms of traffic.
*Hint*
Syl
Nothing to be sorry about, I was clarifying, because my daughter is more of a neocon, she is pro-life in the sense that it is the side she argues and feels carries the moral highground. She is not againts Roe vs Wade. What is interesting to me is that in retrospect Roe vs Wade was a tragic decision for what it wrought, it has all ended about where it would have anyway, but I am pro-choice with certain caveats which I’ll not get into now.
My daughter is coming more from the point that a girl should be given a choice but she most importantly should be given a full chance to be talked out of it as well. Society does not do that, the MSM and many womens group champion the act of choice, buit my daughter has said that they champion the right to abort and not an actual choice because a choice requires full information to what that choice is. These people don’t seem interested in championing both sides equally which is what pro-choice should be about. I am no social conservative by a long shot. But I have come to believe as Tammy Bruce that we should approach the table with the assumption that all sides have valid points, argue it out and be good sports about it. It is the lack of that mentality on the left that has caused me to turn right, my daughter is just starting out from that position at a younger age and view most womens groups on the left with disdain for the same reasons Tammy Bruce does.
President Bush was here in Des Moines on Monday and he did really well in a town hall format. He laid out his entire agenda and said the things that I wish he had said during the first debate.
I’ve got my fingers crossed though…
Samuel
You are rightly proud of your daughter! But I’m sure her solid upbringing and principled parents (no matter which side of the aisle) had a lot to do with it.
I was not speaking of choice as in “pro-choice”, I meant having the choice of having a career. As for what you said about your feelings on ‘pro-choice’, I’m with you there, too.
Tammy Bruce means a lot to me since it was her book on political correctness that helped me get started on my journey.
Just got this in today’s Political Diary from WSJ: